
Class 
Book 



Class -ESS 4-% 




PRICE TWO SHILLINGS. 

A >~ 




GREAT DISCUSSION 



% ORIGIN, AUTHORITY, & TENDENCY 



| 



I B L E , 

ly^yyy. is 



BETWEEN 

J. F. BEHG, D.D., OF PHILADELPHIA^ 

AND 

JOSEPH BARKER, OF OHIO. 



STOKE- UPON- TRENT : 
GEORGE TURNER, LIVERPOOL ROAD. 

LONDON: HOLYOAKE AND CO., li f| FLEET STREET J MANCHESTER: A HEY WOOD, 
OLDHAM STREET. 




GREAT DISCUSSION 

ON THB 



ORIGIN, AUTHORITY, & TENDENCY 

V 

OF THE 



BIBLE, 



BETWEEN 

REV. J. F. BERG, D.D., OF PHILADELPHIA, 

AND 

JOSEPH BARKER, OF OHIO. 
\ 



STOKE- UPON -TRENT : 
PRINTED BY GEORGE TURNER, LIVERPOOL ROAD. 
18 5 4, 



34- 



ORIGIN OF THE DISCUSSION &c. 



In December last, in compliance with a request from the Sunday 
Institute, I began a course of lectures in Philadelphia, on the origin, 
authority, and influence of the Scriptures. The object of the lectures 
was to show that the Bible is of human origin, that its teachings are 
not of divine authority, and that the doctrine that the Bible is God's 
word is injurious in its tendency. 

When I sent the Sunday Institute a programme of my lectures, I 
authorised the Secretary to announce, through the papers, that I was 
willing to meet any clergyman, of good standing in any of the leading 
churches, in public discussion on the Bible question. 

Mr. McCalla, a Presbyterian clergyman, who had previously held 
several public discussions on various subjects, accepted the offer, and 
arrangements were made for a six nights' debate. Mr. McCalla how- 
ever, after the first night, made no attempt to debate the question, but 
employed his time in a manner which it would be difficult and perhaps 
useless, to describe. It may, however, be proper to say, that he 
sought, by abuse, foul names, and other offensive arts, to turn the de- 
bate into a quarrel or a fight. I, however, kept close to the question, 
which seemed to embarrass my opponent, and ihe result was, that on 
the fifth evening, after trying to raise a mob, he withdrew from the 
contest. 

The clergy, or a portion of the clergy, of Philadelphia, unwilling 
to leave their cause in this plight, demanded that I should discuss the 
question with Dr. Berg, a minister in whom they had fuller confidence. 
Being assured that Dr. Berg was a gentleman and a schohr, and that 
he was the ablest debater the clergy of Philadelphia could boast, I 
agreed to meet him, and the discussion was fixed for the 9th, 10th, 
12th, 13th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th of January, 

The report of the debate is before you — the best that I could give. 
Dr. Berg agreed, before the debate, to supply me with corrected copies 
of his speeches, that I might be able to publish the debare in full. I 
wrote to him, when the discussion was over, requesting copies of his 
speeches, but I received no answer. A day or two after, there ap- 
peared an advertisement in the papers, to the effect, that the Christian 
Committee were about to publish an authorised report of the debate. 
This Committee, however, never consulted me — never asked for cor- 
rected copies of my speeches. Their advertisement, therefore, of an 
" authorised" report, must have been designed to deceive. In this 
report, I have given my speeches as correctly as I could ; my oppo- 
nent's are reprinted from the Register. The opinion of many was, 
that the Editor of the Register did my opponent more than justice ; 
and that his speeches were much improved by passing through h ; s 



4 



THE DISCUSSION. 



hands. All I can say is, that I have given the best report of the 
Doctor's speeches I could get. 

Though the Doctor did not prove himself so much of a gentleman 
as I had been encouraged to expect, I was sorry he declined to con- 
tinue the discussion four nights longer, as we had not got more than 
half through the question when the eighth night closed. I wished for 
an opportunity of laying the whole subject before the public. Perhaps 
some other clergyman will take the matter in hand — one disposed 
and able to discuss the subject thoroughly. 

JOSEPH BARKER. 



THE BIBLE DISCUSSION. 

[From the Pen3jlvania Freeman.] 

" The discussion on the authority of the Bible, at Concert Hall, 
between the Rev. J. F. Berg, of this city, and Joseph Barker, of Ohio, 
closed on Thursday evening last, after a continuance of eight evenings. 
During the whole time, the vast hall was crowded with an eager multi- 
tude — numbering from -2,000 to 2,500 persons — each paying an ad- 
mittance of 12^ cents every evening, and on some evenings it is said 
that hundreds went away, unable to approach the door ; nor did the 
interest appear to flag among the hearers to the last. 

" Of the merits of the question or the argument, it does not come with- 
in the scope of a strictly anti-slavery paper to speak, but we cannot 
forbear to notice the contrast in the manner and bearing of the two 
debaters, and the two parties among the audience. Mr. Barker uni- 
formly bore himself as a gentleman, courteously and respectfully 
toward his opponent, and with the dignity becoming his position, and 
the solemnity and importance of the question. We regret that we 
cannot say the same of Dr. Berg, who at times seemed to forget the 
obligations of the gentleman in his zeal as a controversialist. He is 
an able and skilful debater, though less logical than Mr. Barker, but, 
he wasted his time and strength too often on personalities and irrelevant 
matters. His personal inuendoes and epithets, his coarse witticisms, 
and a bearing that seemed to us more arrogant than Christian, may 
have suited the vulgar and the intolerant among his party, but we be- 
lieve these things won him no respect from the calm and thinking 
portion of the audience, while we know that they grieved and offended 
some intelligent and candid men who thoroughly agreed with his views. 
It is surely time that all Christians and clergymen had learned that 
men whom they regard as heretics and Infidels have not forfeited their 
claims to the respect and courtesies of social life, by their errors of 
opinion, and that insolence and arrogance, contemptuous sneers and 
impeachment of motives and character, toward such men, are not effec- 
tive means of grace for their enlightenment and conversion. 

" Among the audience, there was a large number of men, who also 
lost their self -control in their dislike to Mr. Barker's views, and he 
was often interrupted, and sometimes checked in his argument, by 
hisses, groans, sneers, vulgar cries, and clamour, though through all 
these annoyances and repeated provocations, he maintained his wonted 
composure of manner and clearness of thought. On the other hand, 
Dr. Berg was heard with general quiet by his opponents, and greeted 
with clamorous applause by his friends, who seemed to constitute a 
large majority of the audience, and to feel that the triumph of their 
cause, like the capture of Jericho of old, depended upon the.amount of 
noise made." 



BIBLE DISCUSSION. 



The long-expected discussion between Mr, Joseph Barker, of Ohio, 
and the Rev. Dr. Berg, of Philadelphia, was commenced at Concert 
Hall, in the city of Philadelphia, on the evening of the 10th of January, 
1854. The audience crowded the immense room to overflowing. 
Wm. D. Baker, Esq., was chosen Chairman ; and Rev. John Cham- 
bers and Mr. Thomas Illman, Moderators. At half-past 7 o'clock, 
the Chairman read the rules agreed on by the parties. The most 
important are as follows : — 

Mr. Barker rejects the Bible as a Divine Revelation. 
•• Mr. Barker maintains that the doctrines, laws and institutions of 
the Bible are of no superhuman authority. 

The Topics. — 1. The internal evidence. 2. The external evidence. 
3. The tendency of the Bible, when the book is received as of Divine 
authority, Mr. Barker maintains to be injurious. 

King James's Bible to be the standard, with liberty of appeal to 
the original Hebrew and Greek. 

The discussion to continue for eight evenings, with the understanding 
that it may be extended, by mutual consent, for four evenings more. 

Mr. Barker opens the discussion, and Dr. Berg rejoins on each 
evening. 

EEMARKS OF JOSEPH BAEKER- 

Gentlemen Moderators, — Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I would bespeak a calm and patient hearing, and, so far as it can 
be granted, a due consideration of what I may advance. 

Several persons in this city have endeavoured to prejudice the minds of 
the citizens against me. They have preferred against me a multitude of 
charges. Those charges, so far as I have seen them, are all false, with 
two exceptions. I am charged with having been born in England. This 
is true. My defence is, I could not help it. I am also charged with 
not being a naturalized citizen. My excuse is, that the laws do not 
permit me to be naturalized till after a longer residence than I can 
claim. My opponent will not complain of me on account of my birth 
as he was himself born under the same government, and educated in 
the same borough and parish as myself.. It is with the authority and 
tendency of the Bible that we have to do, and to these, I trust, we 



6 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



shall confine our attention. Personalities would not become men met 
for the discussion of so grave a question. 
We are to consider, 

First, the origin and authority of the Bible ; and, 

Secondly, the tendency of its contents, when the book is regarded 
as of divine authority. 

My opponent ought to have taken the lead, and allowed me to 
follow. He should have produced his internal and external evidence 
of the superhuman origin and divine authority of the Bible, and left 
me to answer. This, however, he declined. I am, therefore under the 
necessity of leading. T am required to prove the negative. I shall 
not complain. My task will not be a hard one. We are assured no 
evidence can be adduced, either internal or external, to prove the 
position of my opponent ; while internal evidence, in abundance, Js at 
hand to prove the contrary. 

The doctrine held by my opponent, the common doctrine of the 
Orthodox churches, is, that the Bible is the word of God, that its 
teachings are all divine. We believe that the Bible is the work of 
man, that its teachings are purely human, and that we are at liberty 
to receive or reject them, just as they may appear to us to be true and 
good, or false and bad, 

With your permission, we will state the grounds of our belief. 

I. We know that books generally are the productions of men, an<f 
it is natural to conclude that all books are so, the Bible included, till 
proof is given to the contrary. 

We know of no proof to the contrary. We can find neither inter- 
nal, nor external evidence that the Bible had any higher origin than 
other books, or that it is entitled to any higher authority. We have 
examined what has been brought forward as proof of the superhuman 
origin and divine authority of the Bfble, but have found it wanting. 

II. Even our opponents, who believe in the divine origin of the 
Bible, do not believe in the divine origin of the books deemed sacred 
by other people. They smile at the credulity of the Mohammedan, who 
believes in the superhuman origin of the Koran ; they are even dis- 
posed to scold the Latter- Day Saint, for believing in the superhuman 
origin of the Book of Mormon. 

They are sure the Turk and the Latter-Day Saint are in error. We 
are as confident that our opponents are themselves in error. They 
have hardly patience to read the arguments of Mohammedans and Mor- 
monites in behalf of their Bibles. We have read, to seme extent Jhe 
arguments of all, and found them all equally unsatisfactory. 

III. We have proof that the Bible is not of divine origin, — proof 
that it is of human origin. 

1. The Bible in common use is a translation, made by men as 
liable to err as ourselves; men who did err, greviously. The translation 
bears marks of their liability to err on almost every page. 

The Christian world bears witness to the imperfections of the 
translation, by its demand for new and better translations. No sect 
is satisfied with it. Many of the sects have made new translations. 

2. The Greek and Hebrew scriptures, of which the translators 
profess the common English Bible to be a translation, were compiled 
by men, weak and erring like ourselves, and they, too, are acknowledg- 
ed to bear the marks of human imperfection and error. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



7 



3. The Greek and Hebrew Bibles were compiled from preexisting 
manuscripts. Those manuscripts are human transcripts of still earlier 
manuscripts, which were also human transcripts. Those manuscripts 
are all imperfect. They differ from each other. The manuscripts of 
the New Testament alone, differ in more than 150,000 places. 

The originals are lost — the manuscripts cannot, therefore, be com- 
pared with them. So that no means remain of ascertaining which is 
least corrupted. A perfect Bible, therefore, — a Bible thoroughly 
divine, — a Bible free from error and uncertainty, is a thing no more 
to be hoped for, even supposing such a Bible once existed. But there 
is no evidence that such a book ever did exist. If therefore, we had 
the originals, there is no reason to believe that we should find them 
less imperfect, less erroneous, than our common translations. But 
these are points on which it is not necessary, at present, to dwell. 
The Bible referred to in the rules for this debate is the common 
version. We have, therefore, to do chiefly with the contents of the 
common version. These contents furnish internal evidence, evidence 
the most decisive, that the Bible, like other books, is the work of 
erring and imperfect men. To this internal evidence we call attention. 

I. The form, the arrangement, the language, the style of different 
portions of the Bible, are all manifestly human. The Grammar, the 
Logic, the Rhetoric, the Poetry, all bear marks of human weakness. 
We see nothing supernatural any where in the book, but human im- 
perfection and error we see every where. 

But the moral, theological, and philosophical portions of the B ble 
have the principal claim on our attention, and on these we should 
chiefly dwell. We can see no traces of any thing more than human 
in the morality, theology, or philosophy of the Bible ; but the plainest 
traces of imperfect humanity. 

Bishop YVatson, in his letters to Thomas Paine, has these words: — 

"An honest man, sincere in his endeavours to search out truth, in 
reading the Bible, would examine, first, whether the Bible attributed 
to the Supreme Being any attributes repugnant to holiness, truth, 
justice, goodness ; whether it represented him as subject to human 
infirmities." — Bishop Watson, p. 114. 

We have followed this course, and will now state the result. We 
find that the Bible does represent God as subject to human infirmi- 
ties, and th&t it does attribute to him attributes repugnant to holiness, 
truth, justice, and goodness. 

I. It represents God as subject to human infirmities. It represents 
him as having a body, subject to wants and weaknesses like those of 
our own bodies. When he appears to Abraham, he appears, accord- 
ing to the Bible, as three men. These three men, whom Abraham 
calls "Lord" talk to Abraham. Abraham kills for them a calf, 
Sarah bakes them bread, and they eat and drink. They wash their 
feet, soiled with their journey, and sit down themselves under a 
tree. God is also represented has appearing to Jacob in the form of 
a man. He wrestles with Jacob all night. Jacob was too strong 
for him. He wants to go, but Jacob holds him fast. Jacob demands 
a blessing, and refuses to let. go his hold of the Deity, till he obtains 
it. God, unable to free himself from Jacob's grasp, is forced, at 
length, to yield to his demand, and give him a blessing. He accor- 
dingly changes Jacob's name to Israel, which means the God- 



s 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



conqueror, — the man who vanquished God in a wrestling match. In 
other parts of the book, God is represented as tired and exhausted 
with the six days' work of creation, and as resting on the seventh 
day. In Exodus 31 : 17, it is said that on the seventh day God 
rested, and was refreshed. In Judges I : 1 9, God is represented as 
unable to vanquish some of the inhabitants of Canaan, because they 
had chariots of iron. " And the Lord was with Judah ; and he 
drove out the inhabitants of the mountain ; but could not drive out 
the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." 

2. God is further represented in the Bible is limited in knowledge. 
He did not know whether Abraham feared him or not, till he had 
tried him by commanding him to offer his son as a burnt-offering. 
But when Abraham had bound his son, and lifted up the knife to 
take his life, God is represented as saying, " fflow I know thou 
fearest me ; since thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, 
from me." He is also represented as having to use simiJiar means with 
the Israelites, to find out how they were disposed towards him. In one 
place, he is said to try them by false prophets and dreamers, to know 
whether they loved the Lord their God with all their heart. (Deut. 
33:3) In another, he is said to have led them forty years in the 
wilderness to prove them, to know what was in their heart, and to 
find out whether they would keep his commandments or not. (Deut. 
8 : 2.) One passage represents him as putting the rainbow in the 
clouds, to aid his memory, — that he might look on it, and remember 
his engagement never again to destroy the world by a flood. 

3. Other passages of scripture represent God as both limited in 
knowledge, and limited in his presence, — as dwelling somewhere 
aloft and apart from mankind, — as receiving his information respect- 
ing the doings of men through agents or messengers, in whom he 
could not put confidence at all times, and as being obliged at times 
to come down and see for himself how things were going on. In 
Genesis 11:5, we read, " And the Lord came down to see the city 
and the tower which the children of men builded." So with regard 
to Sodom and Gomorrah, we read, Genesis 18 ; 20, 21, "And the 
Lord said, because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and be- 
cause their sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether 
they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come 
unto me ; and if not, I will know." In all these passages, God is sup- 
posed to be subject to the same or similar limitations w T ith ourselves. 

4. The Bible further represents God as unchangeable, as repen- 
ting of his own doing. In one passage, we are told that it repented 
him that he had made man, when he saw how badly he had turned 
out ; and in another, that he repented of having made Saul king, for 
a similar reason. In many passages he is represented as being 
disappointed in men, and as repenting of the good he had promised 
them, or the evil with which he had threatened them. 

5. The Bible gives still darker representations of God. It presents 
him to our view as subject, not only to innocent human weaknesses, 
but to the most criminal and revolting vices. It represents him as 
partial in his affections and dealings towards his children. He is 
charged with a kind of partiality, which, in a human father, would be 
deemed most unreasonable and inexcusable. He is said to have loved 
Jacob and hated Esau, before either of them was born, and before 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



9 



either of them had done either good or evil. Thus we read, Rom. 
9: 11—13, "For the children being not yet born, neither having 
done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, 
might stand not of works, but of him that calleth : it was said unto 
her, the elder shall serve the younger : as it is written, Jacob have I 
loved, but Esau have I hated." Some tell us that the Hebrew word 
translated "hate" means only to Hove less" Suppose it does, it is 
still partiality to love one child less than another, before the children 
are born, or have done any thing to deserve peculiar love or hate. 
But the hatred here spoken of is something more than a less degree 
of love ; it is positive ill-will, malignity, real deadly hate. Hear how 
Malachi expresses it. Malachi 1 : 2 — 4, "I have loved you, saith 
the Lord. Yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved us ? Was not Esau 
Jacob's brother ? saith the Lord : yet I loved Jacob, and I hated 
Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons 
of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but 
we will return and build the desolate places ; thus saith the Lord of 
hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down ; and they shall call 
them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the 
Lord hath indignation for ever." More cruel or deadly hate, a fiercer 
or more unrelenting cruelty, cannot be conceived. God is further 
represented as caring more for the Israelites than for any other people. 
He is represented as very much concerned for the health, the holiness 
and the happiness of Israel ; but as utterly careless what becomes 
of the rest of the world. Hence, ne is represented as telling the Jews, 
that they must not eat the flesh of any animal that dieth of itself, but 
that they may give it or sell it to the stranger. They must not run 
the risk of poisoning themselves, but they may poison as many others 
as they please. They are not to take usury for money of one another, 
*but they may take it of others. They are not to hold each other as 
bondmen or bondwomen for more than six years at a time ; nor are 
they to rule any of their brethren when in bondage with rigour ; but 
they may hold the people of other nations as bondmen for ever ; 
take them and use them as property, buy them or spII them at plea- 
sure ; rule over them with rigour, and hand them down to their children 
as an inheritance for ever. 

6. Other passages represent God as grossly unjust and implacably 
revengeful. He is represented as punishing the innocent offspring for 
the sins of the parents — as visiting the sins of idolators on their chil- 
dren, to the third and fourth generation. The sons and grandsons of 
Saul, to the number of seven, were hanged before the Lord, because 
Saul, many years before, had done wrong to the Gibeonites. After 
this revolting butchery, the Bible says the Lord was intreated for the 
land. 2 Sam., 21 : 1 — 14. Because David did wrong in the case of 
Uriah, God is represented as saying, "Thy sword shall never depart 
from thine house." The sinner himself is spared, but his innocent 
child dies for his sin. Seventy sons of Ahab are destroyed for the sins 
of their parents. The prophet of God is represented as commanding 
their destruction. 2 Kings 9:10, " The whole house of Ahab shall 
perish," saith the Lord, according to the prophet. God is represented 
as demanding the destruction of whole nations, for sins committed by 
their forefathers many generations before. He is represented as com- 
manding the destruction of the Amalekites — to destroy them utterly — . 



10 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE, 



for a sin, if sin it was, committed more than four hundred years 
before. Hear the passage. It is in 1 Samuel, 15: 1 — 3 — "Samuel 
also said unto Saul, the Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over 
his people, over Israel: now therefore, hearken thou unto the voice of 
the words of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember 
that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, 
when he came up from Egypt, Now go and smite Amalek, and 
utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not ; but slay both 
man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" 
Saul went, it is said, and slew the Amalekites. He utterly destroyed 
all the people with the edge of the sword. He, however, spared Agag, 
the king, and some of the cattle, and so angry is God at this, that he 
repents of having made Saul king. Samuel takes Agag, and hews him 
in pieces before the Lord, to prevent his wrath from consuming them. 
These are horrid and blasphemous stories. But they are not the 
worst. The Bible represents God as cursing, and as dooming to pain 
and agony, to servitude and death, whole races of his creatures, 
throughout all lands, and throughout all ages, for the sin of one indi- 
vidual. It represents him as cursing all serpents, making them cursed 
above all cattle, dooming them to go on their belly, and eat dust, and 
putting enmity in men's hearts towards them, because one solitary serpent 
tempted Eve. It represents him as dooming all women, throughout all 
ages and all nations,to great and multiplied pains and sorrows,andmaking 
them all subject to the will of their husbands, because Eve did wrong be- 
fore another woman existed. It also represents God as cursing the whole 
earth for the sin of one man ; causing it to bring forth thorns and 
thistles to annoy all future generations ; dooming all mankind through- 
out alJ lands, and throughout all ages, to eat of the ground in sorrow 
all the days of their life ; to eat the herb of the field ; to eat their 
bread with the sweat of their brow ; and lastly, to return to the dust. • 
The thought is appalling. Countless millions mercilessly doomed to 
daily and hopeless misery, and then to death, for sins committed 
before any of them were born ! As if this blasphemy were not 
enough, our Orthodox opponents assure us that the death here threat- 
ened was the death of the soul as well as the body, or the consignment 
of both to eternal torments in hell. The posterity of Ham are doomed 
to servitude through all the ages of time, for an alleged offence of Ham. 
The rest of mankind are, of course, doomed to slaveholding. The 
Israelites are destroyed with pestilence for the sin of David, and even 
David is said to have been moved by God himself to do the deed, for 
which the people are destroyed. This case of David deserves to be 
given at length. It is one of the most astounding, revolting and blas- 
phemous stories in the whole Bible. You may find it in 2 Samuel, 
24 : 1 — 10, " And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against 
Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel 
and Judah. And David's heart smote him after that he had num- 
bered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned 
greatly in that I have done ; and now, I beseech thee, Lord, take 
away the iniquity of thy servant ; for I have done very foolishly." 
It seems strange that his heart should smite him for doing as God 
prompted him to do, and that he should charge himself with acting 
foolishly in yielding to God's impulse. But perhaps he was not then 
aware that it was God that had made him do the deed. God pro- 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



1 J 



bably kept his part in the matter a secret. Still, the account has a 
horrible look. " However, when David was up in the morning, the 
word of the Lord came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, 
Go and say unto David, thus saith the Lord, I offer thee three things; 
choose one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, 
and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come 
unto thee in thy land ? or wilt thou flee three months before thine 
enemies, while they pursue thee % or that there be three days, pesti- 
lence in thy land 1 Now advise, and see what answer I shall return 
to him that sent me, And David said unto Gad, I am in a great 
strait : let us fall now into the hand of the Lord, for his mercies are 
great ; and let me not fall into the hand of man. So the Lord sent 
a pestilence upon Israel, from the morning even to the time appointed: 
and there died of the people, from Dan even to Beer-sheba seventy 
thousand men. And when the angel stretched out his hand upon 
Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of the evil, and said 
to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough ; stay now thy 
hand. And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing-place of 
Araunah the Jebusite. And David spake unto the Lord, when he 
saw the angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, 
and done wickedly ; but these sheep, what have they done ? Let 
thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father's house." 
The story bewilders us with its horrors. The sinner is spared, while 
seventy thousand innocents are destroyed ? The sinner, we say. But 
who is the sinner ? Is it a sin to do as God prompts us to do ? 
The only sinner, according to the story, is God himself. Both David 
and his slaughtered people are victims to the unmerited anger of the 
great transgressor and destroyer. The blasphemy of the passage is 
truly horrible. 

7. If possible, the Bible represents God in still darker colours. It 
attributes to him the direst cruelties — the most savage and revolting 
butcheries. Here is a story from Number 31 : 1 — 7, 9, 15 — 18," And 
the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the 
Midianites: afterward shaltthoubegathereduntothypeople. And Moses 
spake unto the people,saying, Arm some of vourselves unto the war, 
and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midi- 
an, Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, 
shall ye send to the war. So there were delivered out of the thou- 
sands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for 
war. And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, 
them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the 
holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. And they 
warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses ; and 
they slew all the males, And the children of Israel took all the wo- 
men of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all 
their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And Moses said 
unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive 1 Behold, these 
caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to 
commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there 
was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now, therefore, 
kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath 
known man by lying with him. But all the women-children that 
have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." 



12 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE 



And the helpless women and the innocent children, even to the suck- 
ling born but yesterday, all are butchered. The exhausted mother, 
with her new- born babe on her breast, are slaughtered together without 
mercy ; and the young untarnished daughters are given to the butchers 
of their fathers, mothers, and their brothers. And neither God nor 
his prophet sheds a tear, or utters a word of regret or sorrow. And 
these the Bible represents as the doings of God ! 

In Joshua tenth and eleventh, we have a long list of such horrors. 
Joshua is represented as going forth under the command of God, and 
slaying men and women, children and sucklings without number, 
utterly destroying whole nations. His warriors put their feet on the 
necks of vanquished kings, then Joshua smites them, and hangs them 
on five trees. He slays the people with a very great slaughter. Even 
the sun and moon are made to stand still, until the ruin is complete. 
He takes city after city ; smites them with the edge of the sword ; 
utterly destroying all the souls therein — letting none remain. The 
Lord, it is said, delivered them into his hands. "So Joshua smo<e 
all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of 
the springs, and all their kings ; he left none remaining, but utterly 
destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded." 
Then follows another string of horrible tragedies ; whole nations, 
numbers of nations, all slaughtered : not one poor soul allowed to 
remain alive throughout their vast extent ; and all is fathered on God, 
And now come other, longer, and more frightful lists of tragic and re- 
volting deeds. Cities and nations, kings and people, men and women 
old and young, all swept away. Not one is left to breathe. All, all 
are slaughtered, as the Lord commanded Moses. " There was not a 
city that made peace with the children of Israel save the Hivites," 
says the story. " Ah ! that explains the matter," says the believer. 

Their destruction is chargeable on themselves, if they would not 
make peace." What ! must the women and children perish, because 
the rulers and the warriors refuse to make peace ? But hark ! the 
story adds : " Not a city made peace, for it was of the Lord to har- 
den their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that 
he might destroy them utterly ; that they might have no favour, but 
that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses." No 
book can give the Deity a darker character than this. None can 
throw out against him more atrocious blasphemies. Yet the book 
abounds in such stories. 

God is said to have hardened Paraoh's heart, that he might not let 
the children of Israel go, but bring down on his people, the innocent 
as well as the guilty, the most grievous plagues, including the des- 
truction of the first-born in every family in the land. Of course, we 
do not believe these stories ; but the blasphemy is none the less. 

Then look at the story of the flood. God is represented as doom- 
ing to destruction the whole human race, with the exception of a 
single family. True, the story tells us man was very corrupt ; but 
were all corrupt ? Were there no good men ? Were there no stain- 
less women 1 No innocent children ; Were all so lost to virtue as 
to be past hope ? Impossible ! But supposing the degeneracy to be 
universal : is utter and unsparing destruction the only alternative ? 
And shall the whole race be swept away without one word of pity, 
or one sign of sorrow or regret ? It is thus the Bible represents the- 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



13 



matter. The blasphemy could not be greater. Nothing worse can 
be conceived. 

8. The Bible represents God as demanding or accepting human 
sacrifices. It represents him as commanding Abraham to offer up his 
son Isaac as a burnt offering, though the sacrifice was not completed. 
In 2 Samuel 21 : 1 — 14, a sacrifice is demanded and made. The 
story is as follows : " Then there was a famine in the days of David, 
three years, year after year-; and David enquired of the Lord. And 
the Lord answered, it is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he 
slew the Gibeonites. Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, 
What shall I do foi you ? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, 
that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord 1 And the Gibeonites 
said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his 
house ; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, 
What ye shall say, that will I do for you. And they answered the 
king, The man that consumed us, and devised against us, that we 
should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts in Israel, Let 
seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up 
unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose. And 
the king said, I will give them. But the king spared Mephibosheth, 
the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the Lord's oath that 
was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul. 
But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Ahiah, 
whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth ; and the five 
sons of Michael the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for 
Adriel, the son of Barzillai, the Meholathite. And he delivered 
them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them 
in the hill before the Lord ; and they fell all seven together, and 
were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days in the 
beginning of barley harvest. And Rizpah, the daughter* of Ahiah took 
sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of 
harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered 
neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of 
the field by night." And then we are told, (verse 14,) that, after that, 
God was entreated for the land. The horrible sacrifice of Jephtha, of 
his own daughter, is mentioned without a word of blame. 

Dr. Bekg. — Will you please read the passage 1 

Mr. Barker.—- Certainly. My reason for not reading every passage at 
full length is, to save time. You may find the account in Judges 11 : 
29 — 40. (Here Mr. Barker read the passage.) It is not here said 
that the sacrifice was commanded, but no intimation is given that 
Jephtha did wrong. The translators have headed the story, "Jepk- 
tha's Rash Vow but the Bible itself contains no censure at all. 

9. Other portions of the Bible represent God as deceiving 
people. It represents God as sending forth a lying spirit to de- 
ceive the prophets of Ahab. The passage is as follows : 2 Chron. 
18 : 18 — 22, "Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the Lord; 
I saw the Lord sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven 
standing on his right hand and on his left. And the Lord said, Who 
shall entice Ahab the king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at 
Ramoth-gilead 1 And one spake saying after this manner, and ano- 
ther saying after that manner. Then there came out a spirit, and 
tood before the Lord, and said, I will entice him. And. the Lord 



14 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



said unto him, Wherewith 1 And he said, I will go out, and be at 
lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, 
Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail ; go out and do 
even so. Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in 
the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil 
against thee.'' In Deuteronomy 13 : 1 — 3, God is represented as 
employing false prophets to try and prove his people, to see whether 
they love him or not. In 2 Thessalonians, 2 : 9 — 12, God is repre- 
sented as sending men strong delusions of the devil — delusions, as 
we understand the passage, consisting of signs and lying wonders. 
These delusions are sent to cause the people to believe a lie, that 
they might be damned. Other passages of similar meaning are to 
be found in the Scriptures. 

The Bible, after giving these unworthy and blasphemous represen- 
tations of God, gives opposite representations of him. We have, in 
consequence, contradictory representations of God in the Bible. While 
one set of passages speak of him as a man, with a body, others tell 
us he is a spirit, without a body. While one class of passages repre- 
sent him as two, three, or many, and call him Gods, another class 
declare he is but one. Some passages tell us that Abraham, Jacob, 
Moses, .the elders of Israel, Isaiah and others, saw God ; some of 
them, his face and form, and Moses his back parts ; others tell us, no 
man hath seen God at any time, and speak of him as the invisible, 
whom no man hath seen or can see. 

COMPARE 

Genesis 32 : 30. John 1 : 18. 

Exodus 33: 20. 1 Timothy 9 : 16. 

Isaiah 6 : 1 . 

Some passages teach us that God is Almighty — that he can do what 
he pleases — that he fainteth not nor is weary ; while others represent 
him as overpowered, set fast, unable to accomplish his wishes and over- 
come difficulties, and as being tired with his labours, and taking rest. 

COMPARE 



Matthew 19 : 26, 
Job 42: 2. 
Isaiah 40 : 28. 



Genesis 32 : 28. 
Judges 1:19. 
Genesis 2 : 2. 
Exodus 31 : 11. 

Some passages teach us that God is every where— that he fills heaven 
and earth — that no one can flee from his presence ; while others repre- 
sent him as limited in his presence — as having a local habitation some- 
where aloft, and as having to come down and take journeys, in order 
to see how things are going on among his creatures. 

COMPARE 

Psalm 139 : 7—10. Genesis 11 : 5—7. 

" 18 : 20—21. 
Some passages teach us that God knows all things — that he searches 
the hearts and tries the reins of the children of men, &c. ; while 
others represent him as having to try and prove men, to find out what 
is in their hearts. 

COMPARE 



Acts 1 : 24. 

Psalm 139 : 2, 3, 11, 12. 



Deuteronomy 8 : 2. 

" 13 : 3. 
Genesis 22 : 12. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



15 



Some passages represent God as unchangeable ; while others repre- 
sent him as changing often. One says, he is not a man, that he should 
lie, or the son of man, that he should repent ; while others represent 
him as breaking his engagements and repenting frequently. 

COMPARE 



James 1 17. 
Numbers 23 : 19. 
Malachi 3:6. 



Genesis 6 : 6. 
1 Samuel 2 : 30. 
Jonah 2:10. 



Some passages assure us that God cannot lie ; while others represent 
him as lyiny, if not in person, by proxy — sending out a lying spirit 
to deceive and entice, and employing false prophets, great miracles, 
and other strong delusions, to make men believe a lie. 

COMPARE 

Titus 1 : 2. 



Hebrews 6 : 18. 
Numbers 23 : 19. 



1 Kings 22 : 20—23. 

2 Thessalonians 2 : 9— 11, 
Deuteronomy 13 : 1 — 3. 



Romans 9 : 10 — 13. 



Many passages tell us that God is impartial — that he is no respecter 
of persons ; while others represent him as loving one and hating another, 
before either of them is born ; as making some for honour and others 
for dishonour ; some for salvation and others for destruction ; as anxious 
for the health, the purity, the prosperity of some, and as indifferent 
to the health, the virtue or happiness of others. 

Romans 2:11 Genesis 25 : 23. 

Job 34 : 19. Malachi 1 : 1—4. 

Acts 10 : 34. 

2 Chronicles 19:7. 
There are numerous other passages, which represent God as specially 
interested in the welfare of the Jews, but as having no concern for . 
the welfare of the Gentiles. 

Some passages tell us that God is just — that he will do right — 
that he will not condemn the righteous or justify the wicked — that the 
children shall not be put to death for the sins of the fathers — that all 
his ways are equal, just and right — that no man shall have ground to 
say, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are 
set on edge — that the soul that sinneth it shall die — that the son 
shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor the father the iniquity of 
the son, but that every one shall receive according to his own doings. 
Other passages, however, represent God as most unjust — tell us that 
God visits the iniquities of the father on the children to the third and 
fourth generation — represent him as destroying whole families for the 
sins of the father — cutting off whole nations for the sins of their fore- 
fathers, dead many generations before, and punishing whole races for 
the sins of individuals. Great numbers of passages might be given in 
proof of this. As specimens, 

COMPARE 

Jeremiah 31 : 29, 30. 



Ezekiel 18 : 1—30. 
Deuteronomy 32:4. 
Job 34 : 10. 
Psalms 92 : 15. 
Genesis 18 : 25. 
Proverbs 17 : 15. 



Genesis 3 : 14 — 19. 

" 9 : 22—27. 
2 Samuel, 24 : 15—17. 
Numbers 31 : 2. 
1 Samuel, 15 : 1—3, 7, 8. 



16 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE, 



Some passages tell us God is love — that he is good to all, and that 
his tender mercies are over all his works — that he would have all to 
be saved — that he is the father of all, and would not that any of his 
children should perish ; while other passages represent him as fierce 
and cruel — jealous, partial and revengeful — telling us that he makes 
the wicked for the day of wrath — raises up some for destruction — 
hating men before they are born — forbidding his people to seek the 
peace or prosperity of surrounding nations for ever. 



COMPARE 



John 4 : 16. 
Psalms 106 : 1. 

« 107 : 7. 

" 119 : 68. 

" 145 : 9. 



Deuteronomy 23 
Ezra 9 : 12. 
Exodus 20 : 5. 
Deuteronomy 4 : 
9 : 

Proverbs 16: 4. 



24. 
3. 



Some passages represent God as commanding the sacrifice of ani- 
mals — speak of the burning flesh as a sweet savor to God ; while other 
passages declare, that God has no pleasure in sacrifices — that he never 
commanded them — that all that God repuires is, justice, mercy and 
humility. 

COMPARE 



Genesis 8:21. 
Leviticus 1 : 9. 
Exodus 12 : 1. 
Leviticus 4 : 5, 6. 



Jeremiah 7 : 21 — 23, 
Micah 6 : 6—8 . 
Psalms 51 : 16. 

« 50 : 9—13. 
Isaiah 66 : 3. 



One passage forbids human sacrifices, while others represent God as 
requiring them. 

COMPARE 

Deuteronomy 12 : 31. [ 2 Samuel 21 : 1—14. 

One passage tells us that God tempteth no man, while other pas- 
sages tell us that God tempted Abraham to offer his son as a burnt- 
offering ; and tempted David to number Israel ; and hardened the 
hearts of Pharaoh and the Canaanites, that they might do wrong and 
be destroyed. 

COMPARE 

James 1 : 23 Genesis 22: 1. 

2 Samuel, 24 : 1. 

Such contradictory representations of God and of his will abound 
in the Bible. ' God is represented as giving contradictory commands, 
teaching contradictory doctrines. All these contradictory represen- 
tations are proofs that the Bible is the work of erring and imperfect 
men. 

Again : the Bible teaches bad morality, It sanctions despotism 
and tyranny of every kind. 

1. It sanctions political despotism. It tells us that there is no 
power but of God ; that the powers that be are ordained of God. It 
commands every soul to be subject to rulers, to submit to them, to 
obey them, to submit to every ordinance of man, and threatens with 
damnation all who resist them. It thus makes binding on men all 
the commands and laws of earthly rulers, however unjust, however 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER 



17 



cruel, however unnatural. We must do nothing that they forbid, 
however good, or however binding : and leave nothing undone that 
they command, however bad, however injurious, however revolting. 
To enforce obedience to rulers, the Bible utters the most outrageous 
falsehoods. It says that rulers are not a terror to good works ; when 
we see that every government on earth endeavours to deter men from 
good works, our own not excepted. It says rulers are a terror to evil 
works, when we know that governments not only tolerate evil works 
in others, such as kidnapping, slaveholding, injustice, cruelty, de- 
bauchery, but frequently practice them themselves on the largest 
scale. " Do that which is good," says the Bible, " and thou shalt 
have praise of the same when we know that governments regular- 
ly reproach and persecute those who do good, call them conspirators, 
rebels, and traitors ; while it bestows its praises on the enemies of 
freedom, the betrayers of the people, the oppressors of the weak, the 
plunderers of the poor. Falser or more immoral doctrines on the sub- 
ject of governments, it is hardly possible to conceive. 

2. The Bible favours slaveholding, the greatest crime of which a 
man can be guilty, — a crime including every crime. It represents God 
as dooming one third of our race to the curse of slavery, in the person 
and posterity of Ham, It represents God's favourites, such as Abra- 
ham and Jacob, as slaveholders. It represents God as allowing his 
favourite people to enslave one another for six years at a time, and as 
permitting or commanding them to buy bondmen and bondmaids of 
the nations around them, and to hold them in bondage for ever ; to 
hold them as a possession, as property, and to hand them down to 
their posterity, as an inheritance for ever. Even the New Testament 
does not denounce slaveholding as a sin, or slaveholders as sinners. 
It speaks of believing masters, or slaveholders, and commands servants 
to obey their masters in all things. It commands them to obey even 
bad masters. And we know what horrible commands masters often 
give to their servants, both to male and female. The thought is 
horrible. 

3. The Bible favours conjugal despotism. It makes the husband 
lord, and the wife a subject or slave. To woman it says, " Thy de- 
sire shall be subject to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." It 
teaches that woman was made for man, not man for woman. Men 
may buy and sell women. They may have two, ten, or a thou- 
sand wives at a time, and concubines or mistresses in addition. 
Wives are commanded in the Bible to obey their husbands, to be in 
subjection to them, to be subject to their husbands in all things. Even 
Christian wives are commanded to be subject to pagan, unconverted 
husbands. They are commanded to obey them, even as Sarah obeyed 
Abraham, calling him lord. The intelligent or virtuous woman is 
to obey her ignorant or depraved husband. As Sarah obeyed Abra- 
ham, when he told her to equivocate or lie, to conceal her relationship 
to him, so Christian women are commanded to obey the commands of 
their husbands, and are encouraged to do so by the promise that they 
shall then be regarded as Sarah's daughters. Paul gives us the most 
grovelling ideas of the ends or uses of marriage. He knows but of one 
motive to justify a man in marriage ; which is presented in the words 

" It is better to marry than to Woman's affections or interests, 

woman's wants or rights are never hinted at. The Bible writers had 

B 



13 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



not learned to care for woman. They had not learned her nature. 
They did not know her worth. 

4. The Bible favours parental cruelty It teaches parents to 
trust to the rod as the great educator. It encourages the most cruel 
use of the rod. " Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but 
the lod of correction shall drive it far from him." " Correct thy son 
while there is hope ; and let not thy soul spare for his crying.' 1 
These cruel lessons are attributed to the wisest of men. 

6. The Bible favours priestly rule— one of the greatest curses that 
ever plagued humanity. It commands Christians to obey those that 
have the rule over them, and submit themselves. (Hebrews 13 : 17) 
Even Jesus is represented as commanding his disciples to obey the 
scribes and Pharisees. Matthew 23 : 1 — 3, " Then spake Jesus to 
the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and Pharisees 
sit in Moses' seat ; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that 
observe and do ; but do not ye after their works, for they say and do 
not." These passages are the foundation of the most oppressive and 
injurious despotisms on the earth. No despotism is so crushing as 
priestly despotism, whether popish or protestant. No despotism is so 
cruel. The protest ants themselves will acknowledge as much with 
regard to popish priestly despotism. We ourselves know as much 
with regard to protestant priestly despotism. Yet both have a firm 
foundation and unfailing pillars in the Bib^e. 

6. The Bible sanctions polygamy, and concubinage ; or the prac- 
of having many wives and mistresses in addition. Abraham is 

i to have taken one of his female slaves as a wife, aud had 
ing by her ; yet no fault is found with him for so doing ; on the 
rary, the Bible represents God as declaring, " Abraham obeyed my 
voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my 
laws." (Genesis 26 : 5.) Jacob had two wives, and had offspring by 
two of his female servants as well ; yet the Bible records no rebuke 
hist him on that account. David had several wives, yet 
m represents God as saying that he had given him into his 
bo e n the wives of his master Saul in addition ; making God the 
to his licentiousness. The Bible says Solomon had seven hun- 
ives and three hundred concubines, a thousand in all ; yet so 
i calling him a fool or a sinner, it declares that he was the 
man that had ever lived, and, stronger still, the wisest man that 
juldlive. Let it be remembered, that the Bible not only men- 
^se abominations of Abraham and Jacob, David and Solomon, 
bur justifies them. It says that David did that which was right in the 
of the Lord, and turned not aside from following him in any 
nj e in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. It blames him for se~ 
u . e wife of a living man ; but justifies him in every thing else. 

S« Solomon is blamed for marrying a foreign princess ; but not for 
re ; _ two wives and one concubine for almost every day in the year. 

7. Those patriarchs and princes did many other bad things. 

appears to have been a slaveholder and a slave-trader, a liar, 
i v&rd, a miserable husband, ready to let his wife be taken by ano- 
ther, to screen himself from danger. David was a liar, a traitor, a 
ret Solomon was a tyrant, a sensualist, a fool. Yet they are 
- for our admiration and imitation, 
b Fhe Brble contains many partial laws ; laws made for the 



REMARKS 01' JOSEPH BARKER. 



I 9 



benefit of one class, at the expense of other classes. Tt contains many 
indecent, foolish, and cruel laws, with respect to women. It contains 
rruel, revengeful, bloody laws, with respect to men. It enjoins 
bloody and unnatural rites. It is horribly liberal in its threats of 
capital punishment. It is one of the bloodiest codes of laws in exis- 
tence. It not only threatens death for many crimes, but for things, 
which are, in truth, no crimes at all. The Bible also contains innu- 
merable foolish laws, about priests, priestly garments, priestly orna- 
ments, the tabernacle and the altar ; about offerirgs, sacrifices, cere- 
monies. Some of these laws are not only foolish, but mischievous. 
In truth, no book on earth, that I am acquainted with, contains more 
foolish or more cruel laws, or inculcates grosser immoralities, or pre- 
sents us with worse examples, than portions of the Bible. 

The Bible also presents us with specimens of the most malignant 
and revengeful prayers. I can imagine nothing more horrible in this 
way than some of the prayers ascribed to David. Take the following 
from the 109th Psalm. David, according to his own account cf the 
matter, has been slandered, and otherwise unjustly treated by some 
one, and the following is his prayer to God for him : — 

"Set thou a wicked man over him, and let Satan stand at his right hand. 
When he shall be iudged, let him be condemned, and let his prayer become 
sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office. Let his children be 
fatherless and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, 
and beg ; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the 
extortioner catch all that he hath ; and let the stranger spoil his labour. Let 
there be none to extend mercy unto him ; neither let, their be any to favour 
his fatherless children. Let hi3 posterit} r be cut off, and in the generation 
following, let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be 
remembered with the Lord ; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. 
Let them be betore the Lord continually, that he may cut off the memory of 
them from the earth. As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him ; as he de- 
lighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As he clothed himself 
with cursing, like as with his garment, so let it come unto his bowels like 
water, and like oil into his bones. Let it be unto him as the garment which 
covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually, Let this be 
the reward of mine adversaries from the Lord, and of them that speak evil 
against my soul. 

Nothing can exceed the bitternesss, the cruelty, the murderous 
malignity, the revengefulness of this prayer. David is not content 
with the torment and ruin of the person who had offended him, but 
must pray for all imaginable curses and calamities on his widowed 
wife, his fatherless children, and even the unborn offspring of his 
children. 

"Let his children he fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be 
continually vagabonds, and beg : let them seek their bread also out of their 
desolate places. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him ; neither let 
there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off. 
and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniqui- 
ty of his fathers be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sin of his 
mother be blotted out. Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may 
cat off the memory of them from the earth." 

Shall we charge such things as these on God ? Men talk of blas- 
phemy, but no blasphemy is greater than that of those who call such 
portions of the Bible as those to which we have called your attention, 
the- word of God. (Time up. Slight apphuse ichm Mr, Barter 
took his seat.) 



20 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG. 

The Rev. Dr. Berg was introduced by the Rev. Dr. Chambers, and 
was received with loud applause and cheers, spite of the previous re- 
quest of the Chairman, that there should be no demonstration of feeling, 
He said, I am sorry that T interrupted Mr. Barker, although I would 
have been justified by the rules. Mr. Barker did not once touch the 
first proposition under discussion. He wasted his first hour. The 
Doctor here went into an argument in defence of religious controversy. 
He said that Christ had once engaged in a controversy with Satan for 
forty days, and why should he not engage in one with an infidel— 
commonly believed to be a child of Satan ? There were two proverbs 
in the Bible, which Mr. Barker might say were contradictory: Answer 
a fool according to his folly, and Answer not a fool according to his 
folly. It might be said that he was giving notoriety to an InfideL 
But it might be well sometimes to place a crown of notoriety on the 
head of an Infidel, that, like the cap and bells on the head of the court 
fool, it might announce the quality of the wearer wherever he went. 
Why should Mr. Barker, even if he could not believe for himself, wish 
to take away from others their only hope and consolation, their comfort 
in the hour ot death ? Some men live as Infidels, but there are few 
who die as such. 

Mr. Barker rejects the Bible because he thinks it full of contridic- 
tions. He brings up old arguments, disproved a thousand times. 
Infidels think better of the Bible than they will allow. I saw an 
advertisement in the Ledger, by a member of the Sunday Institute, 
who proposed to discuss whether Rev. Mr. McCalla, in his late debate, 
consistently maintained the character of a Christian divine and polemic. 
Why didn't they ask whether a man was a consistent atheist, socialist, 
or member of the Sunday Institute ? They were constrained to ren- 
der obeisance to the virtue of the Bible, to its high moral tone. They 
were a little of the faith of the devil, who believes and trembles. 
Mr. Barker challenges me to answer. I am here to do so. Depen- 
ding first upon the grace of the God of Christians and the prayers of 
all good men, I hope to show that his boastings are idle as the wind, 
and wild as its ravings. 

We pity a blind man ; we regard him with tenderness ; we will 
not abandon him. But when a blind man labours to persuade us to 
put out our eyes, that we may be like him, we laugh at the futility of 
the attempt. A man without faith is blind. Faith is the eye of the 
soul. 

The debate commences on the first point. It has not been touched. 
Mr. Barker rejects the Bible as of divine authority. I must prove 
1st. the necessity of a Divine revelation. If Mr. Barker rejects the 
Bible, he is bound to produce a rule of right, a moral touchstone in 
its place. He is bound to reconcile us to the loss of what we hold 
most dear. With what will he do it 1 Has he nothing of superhu- 
man authority ? If not, his only stand is among the bogs of 
stupid, drivelling atheism ; and, before two weeks, we will drive him 
to take his stand there. I offer three facts in support of the necessity 
of a Divine revelation. 

1. The very instinct of ihe human conscience leads men to recog- 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



21 



n'ee the existence of a Supreme Being. Go where you will; every 
race manifests this. 

2. The character of the worshipper always becomes assimilated to 
that of the being he worships. In every act of worship, there is a 
tendency to a nearer approach to the standard. The Egyptians 
worshipped beasts, worms, reptiles, leeks and onions ; and it is shown 
in their character. Some of the ancients worshipped Venas ; their 
worship was obscene. Others worshipped Bacchus ; they went into 
orgies of the most disgusting- character. Those who worshiped Odin 
and Thor were vindictive and fierce. The worshippers of the goddess 
Khiva are murderers, robbers and prostitutes. In China, the priests 
of Buddha undersiand this idea of assimilations of the worshipper to 
the thing worshipped. They say, "Think of Buddha, and you will 
become like Buddha." 

Now, then, the question is, Are there any resources in the human 
mind to prevent this degradation 1 This brings us to the third fact. 

3. No effort of the human mind has resulted in emancipating the 
race from idolatry. 

The first objects of worship were the planets. From these, men 
fell to beasts and reptiles ; and then to idols of wood and stone. 
Much is said of the humanizing effects of art and science ; but the 
experience of the Greeks and Romans contradicts this. Their worship 
was vile and obscene ; so much so, that the earth fairly reeked with 
the fumes of hell. Philosophers tried to identify these gods with 
virtue, to explain them as myths. It was the age of incipient atheism. 
One either despised the gods, or plunged into excess. Cicero says 
that men, instead of transferring to themselves the sense of God, 
transferred their senses to the gods. How can the stream rise higher 
than the fountain 1 Men will be what their gods are. 

Suppose for the sake of argument, that a man could originate the 
idea of a pure God — how could he persuade the people of the existence 
of such a Being 1 He could do nothing but make atheists. Two 
things are indispensable. 1. A pure object of worship must be found. 
2. A pure Being being revealed, the manifestations of his character 
and attributes must be attended with such power as to convince. 

All this we Christians claim we have in the Bible. Such a testi- 
mony we have in its miracles, in fulfilment of its prophecies, in the 
purity of its morality, excellence of its institutions, and in the experi- 
ence of the inner life of the believer. Ask Mr. Barker whence he 
obtained his ideas of a God ? — what object he proposed in the 
creation 1 Mr. B. is indebted to the book he discards. Mr. Barker 
says he receives the good, and rejects the bad. Whence had he this 
superior discrimination ? Either the Bible is a revelation or a fraud ; 
there is no alternative. It professes to be from God. Oh, wise men ! 
bring forth your light. Whence did it shine 1 Was it in Robespierre's 
time, when a prostitute was worshipped as the Goddess of Liberty ? 
Even the Indians would blush to be with men who have no souls. 
[Loud applause. Dr. Berg stopped a moment to give the Irishman's 
advice : "Be asy ; and if you can't be asy, be as asy as you can."] 
You speak of charity — where are your charitable Infidels ? • Their 
association with a Christian community has made them what they 
are. Once, in the history of the world, Infidel charity was permitted 
by God to display itself. People call the epoch "The Reign of Terror.' 
Its emblem was the guillotine . 



22 



DISCUSSION ON THR BIBLE. 



If the Bible is not superhuman, then it is of no vital authority. It 
is valid only on the ground that Might makes Eight. If men are to 
govern, there is anaichy, for one man has as pood a right as another, 
and force is tyranny. If the Decalogue is of human origin, there is 
no wrong in violating it. [The Doctor here went into a development 
of this proposition, applying it to each commandment.] " If my oppo- 
nent should ask me if he would steal, I would answer, No ; for, by a 
happy inconsistency, your life is belter than your doctrine." Under 
this theory, an act is a crime only because it violates a human law. 
Then the Fejees or Patagonians can prescribe what is right, and 
morality is a nose of wax. It would introduce anarchy and tyranny, 
and make earth a pandemonium, where none but devils could inhabit. 
(Loud and long continued applause.) 



SECOND EVENING. 

Mr. Thomas Illman, Moderator. — Mr. Barker will commence 
the discussion. 

Mr. Barker took his place at the stand. (Applause and hisses.) 
Rev. Mr. Chambers. — It is requested that all marks of approba- 
tion, or the contrary, shall be dispensed with this evening. 

Mr. Thomas Illman joined in the request of the other Moderator. 

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 

I trust that the meeting will conduct itself with docorum — that 
the audience will pay attention to what both speakers may say, and 
that no one will attempt to place any obstruction in the way of the 
free and full discussion of the important question under consideration. 
I ask for nothing more for myself than a patient hearing, and this, 1 
trust, will be granted. If what I have to say be true, it is best that 
you should hear me, for it may make you wiser and better ; and if it be 
false, it is still desirable you should hear me, that you may be pre- 
pared to set me right. And even if the statement of my views should 
shock you, it would be well to bear the trial patiently. You send 
missionaries to distant nations, who take the liberty to call in ques- 
tion the truth of their religions, and the superhuman origin of their 
sacred books ; and this is as shocking to the people of those nations, 
as my remarks can be to you. Yet you think the people of those 
countries would do well to listen to the teaching of your missionaries. 
W ould it not be as well for you to listen to mine ? Can you ask from 
Pagans more forbearance towards those who call in question their 
views, than you yourselves are prepared to manifest towards those 
who call in question yours ? Let me add, that, though I feel bound 
to speak with great plainness and freedom, I shall pay as much res- 
pect to the feelings of those who differ from me, as a regard to truth 
and duty will allow. 

The subject of debate is, 

First, the Divine Inspiration of the Bible. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



23 



Secondly, The- tendency of the contents of the Bible, when the 
book is received as the word of God. 

Divine inspiration is explained to mean such a degree of influence 
in the production of the Bible, as to secure it from trror or mistake. 
(Horne 1, p. 2.) 

We have shown that the Bible is not thus inspired ; that every 
Bible in existence abounds in errors ; that our translations, our Greek 
and Hebrew Bibles, and our ancient manuscripts as well, are alike in 
this respect ; that none of them bear any marks of a superhuman 
origin, but that proofs of their human origin are visible on every page. 

Among other proofs, we presented the following : — 

1. That the Bible represents God as subject to human infirmities ; 
as limited in power and wisdom; as circumscribed in his presence, 
and changeable in his character. 

We showed, next, 

2. That the Bible represents God as inexcusably partial, as gross'y 
unjust, and as fearfully cruel. 

We showed, further, that it represents God as commanding or ac- 
cepting human sacrifices ; as using deceit, and as holding up for our 
admiration and imitation, defective and immoral characters. 

We next showed, that the Bible gives contradictory representations 
of God. 

We then pointed out several portions of ihe Bible which sanction 
the grossest immoralities, such as despotism, slaveholding, polygamy, 
concubinage, and the wildest, fiercest, and the most implacable revenge. 

The audience would observe, that my opponent made no attempt 
to answer my remarks, but spent the whole of his time in talking of 
other matters, many of which had nothing to do with the question 
under discussion. 

We shall briefly notice the Doctor's speech, and then proceed with 
our argument. 

1. The Doctor first charged me with not speaking to the point. 
This you can answer for yourselves. The point was, the internal 
evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible. I showed that the 
internal evidence proved the Bible of purely human origin. 
• 2. He next gave me some thirty or forty foul names, and threw 
out a number of unseemly insinuations ; those, of course, require no 
answer from any one. Perhaps the Doctor, on second thought, may 
think it advisable not to follow this course for the future. He surely 
does not expect that we shall follow his example. 

3. He next quoted the words of George the Fourth, (perhaps he 
meant George the Third,) who is reported to have said, " The Bible 
needs no apology." But the word of a defunct English monarch will 
not decide the question here. 

My opponent says that our views are subversive of all virtue, of 
all law and order — that the triumph of our principles would extinguish 
the light of the world, rob men of their only consolation, either in 
life or death, sink the nations in barbarism, &c. 

To all his remarks of this kind, we answer, 

1. That they belong to the second question for debate — the ten- 
dency of the Bible. Here they are out of place. We are now dis- 
cussing the origin of the book. 

2. When such remarks are made, they should be backed by argu- 
ment. Such statements have not much force, till they are proved. 



24 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



The Doctor said something about Socialism ; but as there are fifty or 
a hundred things, widely different from each other, that go under that 
name, and as the Doctor did not tell us to which of them he alluded, 
it would be foolish to attempt an answer. Besides, the subject un- 
der consideration is the Bible, not Socialism. I have said nothing 
about Socialism, of any kind. 

The Doctor's remarks about the Sunday Institute, the members of 
that Institute have answered. The opinion of the members of that 
Institute appears to have been, that the disgraceful course pursued by 
Mr. McCalla, and the alleged uncharitableness of Mr. Chambers, were 
quite consistent with portions of the Bible. For myself, I know of 
nothing, either good or bad, which some portion of the Bible will 
not justify. 

Dr. Berg says, that I myself know full well, that there is not a 
hope nor a consolation, worth the name, except what springs from 
faith in Christ. 

The truth is, I know the countrary. And see what a horrible re- 
flection the Doctor's statement throws on God. Nine-tenths of the 
world have not heard of Christ. According to my opponent, then, 
God has left nine-tenths of his children without a hope or a consola- 
tion worth enjoying. Suppose a man should charge my opponent 
with such cruelty to his children as he charges on God, how would 
he feel ? No blasphemy can exceed the blasphemy implied in my 
opponent's defence of the Bible. 

Something was said about the deaths of unbelievers and Christians. 
I answer, I have seen Christians die full of horror ; I never saw an 
unbeliever die so. I have seen unbelievers very peaceful and com- 
posed on their death -beds. What is there to alarm the unbeliever 
as he approaches death, if he has lived a virtuous and useful life ? 
He fears no hell ; he believes in no great malignant devil ; and the 
God in whom he believes has nothing of hate, or rage, or revenge in 
his character. 

Many of those called infidels, believe in a rational and blissful 
futurity for all, and express a much fuller assurance of a happy immor- 
tality than Christians can boast ; and none of them are haunted by 
the thoughts of malignant devils, or tortured with the dread of end-* 
less torments. 

I have found many of those who are called unbelievers, to be both 
the best and the happiest people I have ever met with. 

The Doctor says, we wish you to put out your eyes. The truth is, 
we would not have you even to keep them closed. We wish you to 
use them more and better than ever you have done. We would, es- 
pecially, have you to keep them open to-night, that you may see who 
runs away from the question. 

the Doctor thinks we have no faith. The truth is, we have 
more than when we believed the whole Bible, and of a better and 
happier kind, too. To believe the Bible, you must disbelieve Nature, 
whose revelations are infinite. 

But Infidelity is nothing but a great negation, the Doctor says. But 
the Doctor forgets, that though we disbelieve the falsehoods and fol- 
lies of antiquity, we have all the positive truth that others can boast, 
whether it be in the Bible or out of it. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



25 



Dr. Berg disbelieves the book of Mormon. The Mormonite tells 
him, Your Infidelity is a great negation. The Doctor answers, " Is 
there nothing in the universe to be believed and known, but your 
tiidious and hateful fables V Just such is our answer to the Doctor. 
Is there nothing to be believed or known but the false and foolish 
stories of the Bible 1 Is the universe of truth shut up in an old book 1 

I am asked, How can I know what is right or wrong without the 
Bible ? I answer, 

1 . No one can tell what is right and wrong by reference to the 
Bible. The Bible is no standard of good or evil, truth and falsehood, 
as I shall show at the proper time. Are believers in the Bible more 
agreed as to what is true and false, good and evil, than other people? 
Not at all. 

2. The Bible does, nevertheless, teach, that men may of themselves 
judge what is right — that men have the law of right written on their 
leaits, and that Nature itself teaches what is right and wrong. 
Besides, would a good God leave nineteen- twentieths of his children 
without the means of knowing good from evil ? He has done so, if 
none can know good from evil but those who have the Bible. 

3. How is the Pagan to know that your Bible is true and good 1 
By the purity of its morals and the excellencs of its doctrines, the 
Doctor says. This is the internal evidence, he says. But this sup- 
poses the Pagan to have some rule of judging — some test or touch- 
stone of truth and error, right and wrong, independent of the Bible. 
The Doctor refutes himself, when he talks of internal evidence. Nay, 
more, he lefutes himself when he talks even of external evidenee, as 
we expect to show by and by. A man must know what is true and 
good, before he can judge whether the Bible is true and good. The 
appeal to internal evidence supposes men to have this knowledge. 

Mr. Berg thinks we are indebted to the Bible for all we know of 
God and mortality above the ancient heathen. He might as well say 
we are indebted to the Bible for all we know of steam and electri- 
city above the ancients. He forgets or overlooks the great law of 
progress, which prevades the universe, bearing all things onward. 
Geology reveals to us the fact that the earth, and the vegetable and 
animal worlds, have been gradually advancing, ceaselessly improving, 
for millions of ages past. 

We find, as we turn over the leaves of the far backward history of 
our globe, that all that is fair and beautiful, sprightly and happy, in 
the vegetable and animal worlds, has sprung from lifeless matter, and 
is the result of slow but ever-progressing developments. At first} the 
earth had not even a moss or a fern that she could boast. In course 
of ages, she abounds in them ; succeeding ages give birth to higher 
forms of vegetable life. At length, the waters and the marshes 
swarm with humble forms of animal existences. Another round of 
ages sweeps them all away, and higher and more perfect forms appear 
and take their places. And thus the earth and all her tribes advance. 
Higher orders of being succeed lower orders. The higher give place 
to higher still. Each age, or circle of ages, makes the earth more 
beautiful, and covers it with lovelier forms of plants and trees and 
flow T ers, and crowds its rivers and oceans, its mountains and its vallies 
with more beauteous and more perfect forms of life. 

The progress of earth and animated nature is a type of the pro- 



26 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



gress of our race. Man has progressed from the beginning. Each 
stage of his existence has unfolded more and more his intellectual and 
moral faculties, and given birth to new Bibles and new institutions ; 
just as each stage of the earth's progress has given birth to new races 
of vegetables and animals. And still, the race moves on, and God's 
great universe unfolds to him in slow but sure succession its wondrous 
secrets, and thus raises him perpetually in knowledge and in virtue. 
And man, as he advances, gives birth to better books and better forms 
of life. 

Dr. Berg says a revelation is necessary. We grant it. Many reve- 
lations are necessary to the perfection and happiness of our race, and 
fresh revelations are daily presenting themselves ; and more are daily 
needed. But no supernatural levelation is necessary; the natural 
ones are sufficient. 

But see, says the Doctor, how dark and depraved those portions of 
the world are, where the Bible is unknown. We reply, See how dark 
and depraved those portions of the world have always been, that have 
had the Bible. Begin with the Jews ; they had the Bible first. 
What says the prophet Isaiah of the Jews. Were they better than 
the Gentiles ? The prophet thought not. He compares them to the 
people of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

Hear his words : "Ah ! sinful nation ; a people laden with iniquity, 
a race of evil-doers, children that are corrupters. Your hands are 
full of blood." Isaiah 1 : 23 — "Thy princes are rebellious, and com- 
panions of thieves ; ever one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards; 
they judge not the fatherless, neither does the cause of the widow 
come unto them." Isaiah 9 : 17 — "Every one is a hypocrite and an 
evil-doer, and every mouth speaketh folly." 

"But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out 
of the way ; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they 
are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink ; they 
en in vision, theystumble in judgment. For all tables are full of vomit and 
filthiness, so that there is no place clean." (Isaiah 28 : 7, 8.) 

" His watchmen are blind ; they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, 
they cannot bark ; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are 
greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot 
understand ; they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his 
quarter. Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with 
strong drink ; and to-morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant. 
(Isaiah 56 : 10—12.) 

" But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as 
filthy rags ; and we all do fade as a leaf ; and our iniquities , like the wind, 
have taken us away." (Isaiah 64 : 6 ) 

Such is the testimony of Isaiah respecting the people who first 
had the Bible. The other prophets give us no better accounts of them. 
They represent them as liars, cheats, thieves, adulterers, oppressors, 
murderers. They repi esent the priests as more deceitful, dishonest, 
unprincipled, drunken and filthy than the rest of the people. 

Then listen to the testimony of Jesus respecting these same people, 
the Bible people of his day, especially the Orthodox professors and 
their clergymen. "Ye are of your father the devil ; and the lusts of 
your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and 
abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. He is a 
liar,a nd the father of lies ; and ye are like him. The deeds of your 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



27 



father ye do. John 8 : 41 — 44. Ail their works they do to be seen 
of men." 

" But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hyprocrites ! for ye shut up the 
kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suf- 
fer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites ! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long pray- 
ers; therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes 
and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; 
and when he is made, ye make him two fold more the child of hell than your- 
selves. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye pay the tithe 
of mint, and anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of 
the law, jadgment, mercy, and faith ; these ought ye to have done, and not 
to leave the others undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swal- 
low a camel. Woe" unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye make 
clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of ex- 
tortion and excess. Woe unto yon, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye 
are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but 
are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also 
outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy, and 
iniquity. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damna- 
tion of hell?" (Matthew 23: 13—15, 23—25, 27, 28. 33.) 

Such is the character Jesus is represented as giving of the Bible 
believers and Bible expounders of his day. He speaks more favour- 
ably of the heretical Samaritans, and even of the unbelieving Saddu- 
cees he makes no such complaints as those which he utters against 
the great believers. 

Hear what Paul says of the Bible people of his day : — 

" They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable ; 
there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre ; 
with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their 
lips. Whose mouth is full of cursing aud bitterness. Their feet are swift to 
shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways. And the way of 
peace have they not known." (Bomans 3 : 12—17.) 

It would be hard to paint a blacker character. 

It was these same Bible believers and Bible advocates, that were 
the great persecutors of the prophets and reformers of their day. 
They said all manner of evil against the teachers of truth and the 
friends of humanity. They scourged them in the synagogues or 
public meeting-houses — they persecuted them from city to city — 
some they crucified and some they stoned. They built monuments 
for the prophets of earlier days, who had long been dead ; but the 
living prophets of their own days they hated, and slandered, and 
killed. These Bible men and clergymen it was that slandered, and 
persecuted Jesus. They called him a Sabbath -breaker and a blasphe- 
mer ; they represented him as an enemy to the government, and as 
a sower of sedition. They insinuated that he was undermining their 
institutions and endangering their nation. They went still further. 
They went even further than my opponent has gone with regard to 
me. They did not think it enough to call him a child of the devil — 
they called him a devil outright ; they even called him Beelzebub, 
the prince of devils. 

Jn the history of the world, there are ten hundred years that are 
known as the dark ages. They were the ages when the Bible men 
reigned supreme—when the church and the priesthood had things 
all their own way — when heresy and unbelief were unknown. Even 
the Bible itself was at length imprisoned in those days. For the 
Bible has not power to preserve itself, when left without aid from 



28 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



without, much less to save the world. We are indebted to heretics 
and unbelievers, for the preservation of the Bible itself. Let the 
world be given over into the hands of believers in the Bible again, 
and the old dark ages would return. 

There is one institution, which, in deceit and cruelty, surpasses all 
other institutions ; an institution, the mention of whose name calls 
forth a world of horrors, and which has long been a proverb for every 
excess of tyranny and fraud, of infernal craft, and heartless butchery — 
it is the Inquisition. This accursed and inhuman institution origina- 
ted with believers in the Bible. It is cherished by the majority of 
Bible believers to the present day. Its infernal principle and murder- 
ous spirit are cherished, even among the Protestants, The Methodist 
Conference is the Inquisition in the earlier stages of its development. 

Within the last few years, nearly two millions of human beings 
have been starved to death in one small country — Ireland. They 
were starved to death by the Bible-believing priesthood, and the Bible- 
believing government of England. 

In one man's reign, no less than seventy-two thousand men were 
hung on the gallows in England ; most of them, on the charge of being 
vagabonds merely. It was in the reign of Henry the Eighth, the de- 
fender of the faith, and the leader of the English reformation, and head 
of the English church. 

The most revolting and inhuman form of despotism and tyranny, 
the crudest form of oppression and wrong now dishonouring the 
earth, and cursing humanity, is to be found in a land of Bibles, and 
flourishing under the care and culture of the Bible-believing church 
and clergy — it is American slavery. 

The Doctor speaks of the French revolution. That is a large sub- 
ject, and would require some time for its discussion. A world of 
falsehoods have been fabricated and put in circulation respecting it. 
The revolutionists have been fearfully slandered, and the Doctor ap- 
pears to have been imposed upon by the slanderers. I wish we had 
time to do justice to this subject. In the after part of this debate I 
expect to prove three things. 

1. That the Bible-believing monarchs, aristocrats and priests, who 
preceded the revolution, were more cruel and more profligate than the 
revolutionists. 

2. That the horrors of the French Revolution were owing more to 
the crimes and cruelties of believers in the Bible, than to any crimes or 
cruelties of unbelievers. 

3. That the great French Revolution was an incalculable blessing 
to France — that it swept away many unjust and inhuman laws ; re- 
formed or entirely abolished many unjust and injurious institutions ; 
gave great impulse to intellectual culture ; promoted the moral eleva- 
vation of the people ; weakened the power of the priesthood ; des- 
troyed the hereditary aristocracy, and, to a great extent, broke up the 
accursed land monopoly ; .distributed much of the land among the in- 
dustrious classes ; increased the wealth of the country five-fold ; and, 
what is more, promoted its more equitable division among the masses. 
I expect to prove, that, since that revolution, the French have been 
better governed, better clothed, and better fed. All these things, and 
many more, I shall if timejjpermit, prove from Orthodox historians 
and statesmen themselves. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



20 



The Doctor speaks as if the ancient Greeks and Romans had no 
correct ideas of right and wrong. He surely cannot have read many 
of their writings. They appear to have had better ideas of right and 
wrong than many of the ancient believers in the Bible. In reading 
the early history of Rome, I was frequently struck with the just and 
noble sentiments, both of the Roman people, and some of the Roman 
rulers. Even the Doctor seems to be struck at times with the gran- 
duer of the Roman soul, for, in a lecture of his, I find the following : 
* I love that noble saying of the old Roman, 'I dare not say aught 
that is false ; and I am not afraid to say any thing that is true.'* " 
This is but a fair sample of their noble sayings. I could give you a 
thousand such. 

Dr. Berg speaks of miracles as a proof of the supernatural origin and 
divine authority of the Bible, Will he tell us, 
1 What a miracle is ; 

2. How a miracle can be known from any other events ; 

4. How miracles can prove a work to be divine ; 

4. Will he prove that the Bible stories of miracles are true ; Our 
conviction is, than he can do none of these things. 

The Doctor also speaks of the fulfilment of prophecy as a proof of 
the divine origin of the Bible. But, 

1. No fulfilment of prophecies can prove the Bible to be divine. 
The utmost that the fulfilment of prophecy could prove would be, the 
possession of a supernatural gift by the prophet. But it would not 
prove even this. 

2. No prophecies can be pointed out in the Bible, that can be 
proved to have been fulfilled. We know what Newton, Keith, and 
others, have attempted to prove ; and we also know how they have 
failed, 

3. We can point to many prophecies in the Bible that have not 
been fulfilled, and that can never be fulfilled now. The time for their 
fulfilment is past. And one such prophecy in the Bible proves the 
book not to be wholly divine. 

My opponent talked a great deal about the family institution. He 
seems to think we are opposed to it. We are just the contrary. We 
regard the family institution in its true and natural form, as the source 
of unspeakable bliss, and the friend of every virtue. We esteem it 
more highly, we enjoy its blessiigs more perfectly, than when we be- 
lieved in the divine authority of the Bible. 

But what does my opponent mean by the family institution 1 He 
talks as if there were but one family institution, or one way in which 
a family may be organized ; whereas there are several. In some cases, 
the family consists of one wife and several husbands ; at other times, 
it consists of one husband and several wives. In other cases, it con- 
sists of one husband, several wives, and a number of mistresses — it 
may be seven hundred wives and three hundred mistresses. Then, 
again, it sometimes takes the form of a large slave-trading and slave- 
breeding establishment, in which one man, with one or a number of 
wives, makes use of his female slaves as wives or mistresses, thus mul- 
tiplying his marketable human goods from his own loins. Iu other 
cases, the family consists of one husband and one wife : but the hus- 
band and wife are brother and sister, or other blood relations. Again 
it consists of one husband and one wife, the husband lord, and the 



30 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE, 



wife subject or slave, bound to obey her husband in all things, 
however vile and ignorant he may be. There is yet one other form 
of the family institution, formed by the union of one man and one 
woman, not blood relations, but one in soul, loving each other with 
pure and ardent love. There is no authority, no subjection. Nei- 
ther husband nor wife is master ; neither husband nor wife is slave. 
Both are equal. They are companions, friends, lovers ; both ready to 
serve, both happy to serve in love ; but neither rude or brutal enough 
to command. Their children are objects of their united love, and 
sources of most delieious enjoyment. The family is a school, where 
truth and love are taught, and all the forms of virtuous excellence, 
and all the arts of life and blessedness are taught by living and ever- 
present examples. To which of these forms of the family institution 
did my opponent refer % It is the last that we love. This we re- 
gard as divine. We know nothing diviner. But this is not the family 
institution to which my opponent referred. The forms of the family 
institution to which he referred, were those presented in the Bible ; 
and those are all vicious and unnatural. Take the families of those 
whom the Bible represents as God's favourites — as the wisest and the 
best of men. Begin with that of Abraham. Here, we have one hus- 
band, two wives, two kinds of children, and a multitude of slaves, 
either bought with money or bred in his house. The first wife is the 
husband's half-sister ; his second, is one of his slaves. The children 
quarrel, and the wives quarrel ; and the result is, the younger wife, 
the female slave, and her child, are turned out of doors, to wander in 
the wilderness, exposed to all the horrors of starvation. Take Jacob's 
form of the family institution next. Htr«i, we have one husband and 
four wives. Two of the wives are sisters — they are the husband's 
cousins. He bought them of his uncle for seven years' service each. 
He loves one of them, but hates the other. It is not known whether 
either of them loves him. A woman's love or taste was not consulted 
in Bible times. The other two wives are the husband's slaves. Here 
too, the wives and their children quarrel ; and the elder sons at length 
take one of the younger ones, and sell him into slavery. The wives 
are disputing about their husband's favours, and buying and selling his 
company. We have, next, the case of David. How many wives he 
had, we are not told ; but after being informed that he had taken a 
number, we are told that God gave him a number more, even all the 
wives of his master and father-in-law Saul. His house is the scene of 
incest, rape, strife, rebellion and murder. 

Next comes the case of Solomon. Here, we have seven hundred 
wives and three hundred mistresses — a thousand in all. We may 
guess what kind of household comfort the husband had, from the 
low opinion he expresses of woman, and the miserable views he 
gives of life. " One man among a thousand I have found," he says, 
" but a woman among ten thousand I have not found. All is vanity 
and vexation of spirit.' These are the forms of the. family institution 
we are to accept as divine, if we take the Bible as divinely inspired. 
The Bible gives us no example of a true, a natural, a virtuous form 
of the family institution. We have found the true family order, but 
we are not indebted to the Bible for the discovery, but to Nature 
only. We have found it in spite of the Bible. It is the Bible- 
believers, then, that are the enemies of the true, the natural, the vir- 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



31 



tuous, the happy family institution. The man who praises the Bible 
forms of the family institution, praises, though he may not intend it, 
the grossest forms of vice. (Time up.) 

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG. 

(General and long-continued applause.) I feel under obligations 
to my opponent to present the positive side of the argument for the 
Divine origin of the Bible ; but I will notice his objections. These 
do not come regularly. His first speech contains propositions under 
both topics of this debate. You will excuse me the episode, before I 
proceed to establish a few propositions bearing on the question. While 
my opponent was speaking of the attributes of Jehovah, I was forcibly 
reminded of the passage in Job — " Canst thou by searching find out 
God ; canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection 1 It is as 
high as heaven ; what canst thou do ? as deep as hell ; what canst 
thou know ? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and 
broader than the sea." We can appreciate the motives of God only 
so far as they are revealed. The imperfect understanding of man 
cannot conceive God. His ways are not as our ways. They are as 
high above them as heaven is above the earth. Before an y^ objection 
to the acts of Jehovah can be considered valid, the mind of the objec- 
tor must embrace the vast range of the universe ; he must be as wise 
as Jehovah himself. What shall we think of the man, who, with 
feeble intellect, presumes to sit in judgment on God 1 It is said 
by the wise man, that if a man judge in a matter without first hearing 
it, it is a shame to him. One thing is certain, that when God created 
the world he never took counsel of my opponent. (Laughter, slight 
applause, and a few hisses.) History shows that all the revelations 
of God to man have been progressive, developing themselves as the 
human mind was able to comprehend and act upon them. It took 
four thousand years to prepare the world for the introduction of 
Christianity. The system was foreshadowed by types full of por- 
tentous meaning. A code of laws was granted, imperfect, it is true, 
but enough to secure the Jews civil and religious privileges vastly 
superior to any enjoyed by contemporaneous nations. Moral truth 
was revealed as fast as men were prepared to receive it. Christ said 
to his disciples that he had many things to say to them, but they 
could not hear them at that time. Men may be prevented from ac- 
cepting the truth by their passions, or from understanding it by their 
imperfect social organization. As time rolled on, God became iviore 
intelligible to his people ; always, however, accommodating his lan- 
guage to human weakness. If the ancient Scriptures spoke of God as 
having a body, it did no harm to the Jews, for it was revealed to them 
that God is a spirit. They made no mistake, were led into no error. 
Even my opponent, dark as his mind is, never was misled by this 
language. He would repudiate any such construction of the whole 
of those books. Their excellence was gieat. They taught that 
eternity was real, that there were higher and lower spheres of 
being, that heaven was the development of the greatest glory to which 
man can be raised, and hell the realization of the greatest misery 
to which he can be sunk. 



32 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



Our present state is a pupilage for something higher and better, 
just as the Jewish system was. We can regard this book as the pro- 
gressive Revelation. It should be taken and interpreted as a whole. 
The imperfect language, adapted to human weakness, of one part, may 
be perfected in another. If my opponent finds in the Old Testament 
that David is represented as being tempted of God, and that this is 
better expressed in the New, candour requires him to make the cor- 
rection. In James 1 : 14, we read, "Let no man say, when he is 
tempted, I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with 
evil, neither tempteth he any man ;" and the apostle adds the signi- 
ficant words, " But every man is tempted when he is drajvn away of 
his own lust, and enticed." 

That the Bible, as a whole, is a progressive revelation, is an answer 
to many of the insulated objections urged by Mr. Barker in his first 
speech ; but I will answer them more in detail. What shall we say, 
however, of his mode of reasoning ? Tt is laborious, certainly, but of 
a purely mechanical character. We look in vain for anything in it 
broad and philosophical. W e find in it assertion upon assertion de- 
void of foundation, and lacking; every attribute except unparralled effron- 
tery. (Vehement applause, and hisses.) Does my opponent believe 
in a God ? If so, what are his attributes 1 What is he 1 I asked 
him this before, and he omitted to answer. He omits to answer the 
very questions upon which the gist of the matter turns. Is his God 
one of perfection ? Whence does he derive his ideas of God 1 
From the works of Nature 1 Let him explain them by reference to 
Nature, if he can. 

My opponent says that the God of the Bible is unjust and cruel. 
May God, in his infinite mercy, open his eyes to the light ! The 
slaughter of the Canaanites, with their women and children, would 
have been cruel, if there had been no divine command. But God is 
sovereign, and could thus testify his inflexible determination to punish 
their vileness. Holiness may require severity for its justification. A 
God all mercy would be an unjust God. 

I said, last night, that my opponent would be driven to take his 
stand among the bogs of atheism, Let us see where his principal 
argument would lead him. Is this world, with its varied events, con- 
trolled by a superintending Providence, or is it not ? 

How is it with the ten thousand human beings who recently fell 
before the pestilence in a Southern city ? What will you say 
of that population, decimated by the hand of the destroying angel, of 
the people living on the borders of the Mississippi river, who were 
cut off, and the women and innocent children taken from this earth, 
not by a momentary pang, but by the slow process of a frightful 
disease 1 Will he lift toward Heaven his daring hand, and say that 
God is cruel ! Even now the public mind is agitated by the painful 
rumour that a vessel has gone down at sea, with hundreds of human 
beings, of all ages, on board. If she has, will my opponent lift his 
bold face and cry — God isjmjust ? But we Christians will bow be- 
fore the dispensation of Providence, and say his ways ire on the sea, 
and his path on the deep waters. 

The ordinary operations of Providence offer a more stupendous 
difficulty than the case cited by my opponent. Men die. Why do 
they die ? Why is there upon them the incurable taint of mortality 3 



REMARKS OF DR. Bl-RG. 



OO 



Can Infidelity solve the problem ? The daily deaths on the face of 
the earth are fifty million, daily illustrations of the truth announced in 
the Bible, " He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down ; he 
fleeeth also as a shadow, and continueth not." All die — men women 
and little children. Will my opponent stand by the fresh graves of 
the dead, and say : ''■ Oh ! God ! thou art cruel !" Let him. We 
will rather pray : Lord, so teach us to number our days, thatr we 
may apply our hearts unto wisdom." He may ask, in reference to 
these natural phenomena, was the flood necessary ? W r e answer : 
Behold a flood which sweeps away generation after generation ; besides 
geology proves the truth of the Deluge. 

My opponent spoke of Jehovah as repenting, though immutability 
is one of the divine attiibutes. I might make a stand here on philo- 
g : cal ground, but I waive that. No child could mistake the meaning; 
none but an Infidel, an Infidel driven to desperation, would make of 
this a contradiction. So, again, when God is represented as resting 
after labour, being refreshed, depending upon human action, coming- 
down to Babel, and visiting Sodom — all this is owing to the use of 
human language, in its ordinary acceptation. 

He represents Jehovah as encouraging immorality, because some of 
his favourites were guilty of bad acts. I must pronounce this a 
plasphemous slander. This is strong language, but it is merited. Did 
God regard these acts with favour ? Are we not told that he punish- 
ed them 1 How, then, will my opponent dare to say that God en- 
courages immorality. (Cheers and a few hisses.) 

The punishment of David, Abraham, and others, is recorded. They 
were God's favourites, not because they were without sin, but because 
they were habitually devoted to his service. 

He represents God as partial, because he had a chosen people ; and 
the Bible as contradictory, because it says He is no respecter of per- 
sons. In one sense, God is impartial, treating all alike. In another, 
He is a sovereign, dispensing favours as seems good to him. He dis- 
penses health and sickness, wealth and poverty, high and lowly sta- 
tion. He judges king and peasant by the same law, and assigns to 
master and slave the same mortality. He gives to whom he pleases, 
station, power, and the emolument of grace. He is the only Eternal 
Invisible, and Wise God. Glory and dominion to him for ever. 
Amen. (Slight applause.) 

My opponent represents Jehovah as accepting human sacrifices on 
his altars. Is this so 1 I would be justified in using strong language 
here, but I will be as moderate as the case will allow. He cites 
Abiaham's intended sacrifice of Isaac. It is true, God ordered 
Abraham to sacrifice his son on Mount Moriah, but when he was 
about to do it, we read that the angel called to him and said, " Lay 
not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him ; for 
now I know that thoufearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy 
son, thine only son from me." 

This important statement was omitted by my opponent. God 
proposed to try the faith of Abraham. Did He not know ? Surely 
he did. But the trial was needed for Abraham's profit, and for an 
example to the Church for all succeeding generations. Jehovah re- 
quired human sacrifices ! Yes, Mr. Barker, He requires you and me 
to offer ourselves as living sacrifices to His service. But He is no 
c 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE 



Moloch. If God had permitted Abraham to make the sacriftce, He 
had a right to do that, or any thing else his sovereign wisdom might 
demand. 

My opponent represents the God of the Bible as practising deceit, 
as sending strong delusions, and lying spirits. The doctrine that God 
abandons men who will not repent is true. They harden their 
hearts, and He gives them over to believe lies. [Dr. Berg was jus- 
tifying the doctrine of judicial blindness, when his time expired. He 
sat down, remarking, that as he had been indebted, last evening, to 
the courtesy of Mr. Barker for a few minutes more, he would now 
repay the debt. (Long and loud applause.) 

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 

I am glad my opponent has thought proper to attempt to answer 
some of my arguments of last night. The full strength of those argu- 
ments would not be so clearly seen, if no attempt were made to refute 
them. You see now the amount of what my opponent has to bring 
against them, and can judge what it is worth. 

He says that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, not for 
his own information, but for the benefit of Abraham, and to make 
him an example to the Church. It is easy for the doctor to say 
this, but how will he prove it ? The Bible, which the doctor says is 
his only guide, says just the contrary. The reason it gives for the 
trial comes out in the words attributed to God : "Lay not thine hand 
?.pon the lad ; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou 
hast not witheld thy son, thine only son, from me.*' No words could 
more plainly indicate that, before this trial of Abraham, God was in 
doubt with regard to him ; but that Abraham's readiness to kill his 
son, his only son, had fully satisfied him that he feared him. To put 
something else in the place of this account of the matter, is to alter 
the Bible, not to prove it divine. No doubt, the doctor could put 
something in the place of these objectionable passages which would 
not be so foolish or revolting, but his business is not to make a new 
Bible, but to prove the one we have divine. 

In the parallel passage in Deuteronomy 8 : 2, the reason is given : 
" And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led 
thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee and, to prove 
thee, to know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldst keep his 
commandments, or no." Nothing could more plainly intimate tfrat 
God did not previously know what was in their heart. 

The passage on which I laid most stress as proving the charge that 
God is represented in the Bible as demanding human sacrifices, was 
2 Samuel, 21 : 1 — 14. This passage should have been noticed first; 
yet the Doctor has passed it entirely by. Did he feel that an attempt 
to explain the passage would maiie the matter worse ? This passage 
derserves particular notice. It is one of the strangest and most 
revolting in the Bible. " Then there was a famine in the days of 
David three yeass, year after year ; and David inquired of the Lord. 
And the Lord answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, 
because he slew the Gibeonites." Here we are taught, first, that 
God sent a three years' famine, to afflict and destroy an innocent 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



35 



people, because a king, long since dead, had, during his lifetime, been 
cruel to another people. The idea is most ridiculous and monstrous. 
It is as if a father should starve his younger children to death, because 
an older child had previously beaten and killed a number of his 
brothers and sisters. But this is not the worst. God keeps on 
punishing the innocent with famine, on account of the cruelty of Saul 
to the Gibeonites, till David delivers over to the Gibeonites seven 
innocent sons and grandsons of Saul, and till the Gibeonites hang 
those innocents before the Lord. The Bible tells us that, after this 
God was intreated for the land ! A more foolish, a more horrible, a 
more immoral, or a more blasphemous story, it seems hardly possible 
to conceive. 

My opponent asks, Can we, by searching, find out God 1 Can 
we learn his character and attributes from Nature ? The Bible says 
we can. In the first chapter of Romans, we are told, that "that 
which may me known of God is manifest to them ; (that is, the 
Gentiles,) for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible 
things of Him, (his unseen attributes,) from the creation of the world, 
are clear'y seen, being understood or revealed by the things that are 
made, even his eternal power and God-head ; so that they are with- 
out excuse." Rom. 1 : 17, 18. VVe think, with Paul, that what 
may or what can be known of God, — all that can be known of God, 
■ — is made known to us by Nature ; that the things seen, reveal all 
that can be revealed of things unseen ; that as we see the hidden 
nature of a tree by its friut, and the inner nature of man by his 
deeds, so do we see the otherwise invisible attributes of the Deity 
by his works. 

The Doctor says God's ways are not our ways. It is well they 
are not, if the ways of God are such as the portions of the Bible 
which we read last night represent them. But they are not. Those 
portions of the Bible belie God. They blaspheme him. Still, the 
ways of many men are too much like the horrible ways falsely 
attributed to God in the Bible. Men who regard those bioody and 
revengeful slaughters as God's works, often become bloody and 
revengeful themselves. 

The Doctor says we must be as wise as God himself, our minds 
must embrace the vast range of the universe, before we are qualified 
to judge God's doings. 

Dr. Berg. — My opponent misrepresents me. 

Mr. Barker. — I thought I quoted his wortls. Will the Doctor 
please to state what he did say 1 

Dr. Berg. — I said, that in order to be able to appreciate the 
motives which govern the conduct of God, we must have all his 
wisdom. 

Mr. Barker.— ?o I understood him. But is it so ? To appreci- 
ate the motives of a person, we only need, in general, to know his 
acts. As a general rule, the act reveals the motive, as the fruit 
reveals the tree. To know what character the writers of the Bible 
attributed to God, we need only to know what deeds they ascribe 
to him. But the Bible professes to tell us God's motives as well as 
to acquaint us with his acts. Thus, in 1 Samuel, 15 : 2, 3, we are told 
that God's motive fcr destroying the Amelekites was revenge, — ven- 
geance for a crime committed four hundred and fity years before the 



36 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



poor creatures were born. "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remem- 
ber that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the 
way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, 
and utterly destroy all they have, and spare them not ; but slay both 
man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 
The Doctor's talk about hidden motives is out of place. The horrid 
deed and the mad miserable motive are both stated : and the repre- 
sentation that God could do such a deed, from such a motive, is 
assigned * k in Numbers 31 : 12, for the wholesale, cold-blooded and 
unsparing butchery of the innocent women and children of Midian. 
"The Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel 
of the Midianites." My opponent talks of blasphemers. The great- 
est blasphemers are those who charge God with being the author of 
such blasphemous misrepresentations of himself and his doings. 

The Doctor says I placed Mormonism on a level with Christianity. 
I did not. I simply referred to Mormonism to make plain the folly 
of my opponent's remarks about unbelief being nothing but a great 
negation. 

He tries to account for God's speaking of himself as subject to- 
human weakness, by telling us that God reveals truth, as men are 
prepared to receive it. But the passages we have been noticing, do 
not reveal truth. They conceal it. They teach error. Suppose a 
Turk or a Pagan should make such excuses for the blasphemous 
representations of God found in the Bibles 1 You would scorn them. 
Yet they would do for Paganism as well as Judaism. The truth is ? 
men are always better prepared. for true representations of God than 
false ones. Such representations of God as those we have noticed, 
do not prepare men for true representations. They blind men. 
When received as divine revelations, they act as a veil to hide from 
men the truth for ever. The best way to prepare men for receiving (he 
truth is to tell them it. If they cannot bear the whole, tell them a part ; 
but never teach them falsehoods. God especially could have no reason 
for speaking falsely, if he can make men understand him at pleasure^ 

My opponent says God speaks of himself as having a human body 
to make truth plainer. What truth ? The truth that he has no body? 
Strange reasoning this. You tell a man God is like a man, — eats, 
drinks, rests and refreshes himself like a man, to make it plainer that 
he is not like a man, and that he does none of these things ! And 
men can be imposed on by such reasoning. It is mournful. We 
repeat the tendency of these false representations of God, when re- 
ceived as God's word, is to perpetuate error, to make it immortal. 
They blinded the Jews. Moses is the veil on their hearts to this 
day, which hinders so many of them from seeing the truth. The 
waitings attributed to him are as a veil on the minds of Christians 
too. The false representations of creation and the universe given in 
those books, prevent men from seeing the truths unfolded by Geology 
and Astronomy. While men receive these childish and blasphemous 
febles as God's revelations, their minds are disabled, — and all the 
revelations of truth presented by God's great universe are lost on 
them. They grope in darkness at noonday. A darkness like the 
fabled darkness of Egypt covers them ; while the rest of men rejoice 
in a world of light. 

My opponent intimites that before we can befitted to judge the 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



37 



Bible representations of God, we must take in the whole range of 
history and of God's moral government of the world. That is to say, 
before we can learn anything from the Bible, we must know ten 
times more than the Bible can ever teach us, and even ten times more 
than all the men that ever lived. A wonderful book, that is unable 
to teach us any thing, till we have learned every thing without its help. 

My opponent says, that the spiritual character of God is revealed 
in the same book in which he is spoken of as a man. We ask, 
Where ? He refers to the prophets. But the prophets did not wriie 
in the days of Moses, nor for nearly T a thousand years after. Besides, 
if God could give true revelations as to his spiritual character in the 
same book, why did he give any other ? 

My opponent says, that though the Old Testament represents God 
as tempting David, James saith that God tempteth no man, and that 
I ought to accept this correction. I cannot receive both. They^ con- 
tradict each other. If I take James's statement, who sa\s God 
tempteth no man, I must reject the other, which says he tempted 
David. 

My opponent called me a few more bad names, bat these I pass 
over. He says Nature does not reveal a merciful God. The Bible, 
however, says the contrary. He says I represent God as cruel and 
partial. I do not. I only say that the Bible so represents him. 

He says God destroyed children by thousands to show his hatred 
to sin. The Bible account of it is that he did it from an old grudge 
against their ancestors, which he had cherished more than four hun- 
dred years. 

The Doctor asks if the world is controlled by a superintending 
Providence or not 1 If so, why do thousands perish by agues, plagues, 
&c ? We answer ; we believe in no Providence that interferes with 
the laws of the universe. We believe those laws to be fixed and un- 
changeable. We believe that diseases are governed by general laws. 
We do not attribute them to any special interference of God. We 
know whence diseases spring. We can see their natural causes. We 
have power to prevent them by removing the causes. Agues and 
chill fevers come from swamps and stagnant waters, and — (Here the 
speaker was interrupted by a violent explosion of hisses, derision, and 
shouts.) 

Dr. Berg. — I beg my friends not to interrupt the speaker, but to 
listen in silence to what he may say. 

Mr. Barker. — Is it possible that Americans can doubt whether 
swamps, stagnant water, and the like, are the causes of ague 1 The 
English know it, who have had less to suffer from ague. They have 
rid whole districts of ague, by draining the marshes. All diseases 
have natural causes. Typhus originates in filth, impure air, and 
irregular habits. Yellow fevers, plagues, and cholera have similar 
origins. They take their rise among the decaying carcases of a battle 
field ; the noxious exhalations from the putrefying, unburied dead, 
infect the living. The disease then spreads with fearful rapidity. It 
rides on the wings of the wind. The ships transport it across the 
ocean. The filth and profligacy of sea ports encourage its spread. 
The vessels carry it up the rivers into the interior. If men would attend 
to these things, they might secure themselves from those terrible 
plagues. Tf the minds and resources of mankind had been wisely em- 



38 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE 



plojed, they might have healed the whole earth before this, We 
may heal it still. If we will study the laws of nature — if we will 
open our eyes to the truth revealed by nature, instead of losing our 
minds amid the dreams of antiquity, we may make the earth as healthy 
as we wish, and almost double the length of life. If you think God 
causes diseases by some special act of providence, you will look to God 
to cure it. Instead of using natural remedies, j^u will trust to prayer 
or fasting, and the disrate will continue its ravages. The idea seems 
monstrous. A man drinks intoxicating drinks, and the consequence is 
thit the next day he has the headache. Does God send him that 
headache ? Is prayer the remedy for it ? He drinks more freely, 
and delirium tremens follows. To atrribute the disease to God's 
special providence, or to recommend prayer as a cure, is folly. Drink 
caused them. Let the man give up his intoxicating drink, and the 
disease will cease to trouble him. And so with dyspepsia and other 
disea-es. Let men study the laws of their physical, mental and moral 
being, and their relations to external nature, instead of looking for all 
saving tru h in ancient, ^and antiquated documents, and he will be in- 
finitely wiser and better, and inca^ulably healthier and happier. 

The Doctor speaks of a supposed shipwreck, and asks, shall I call 
God cruel for causing it ? No. We shall look for the cause of such 
disasters in human oversight, or want of care, not in God. 

The Doctor says, when he looks on the ravages of fevers; and the 
like, he will say, " So teach us to number our days, that we may apply 
our hearts unto wisdom." We, too, would say, " Let us apply our 
hearts unto wisdom ;" but we would add, "Let us drain our swamps; 
let us clear oar forests ; let us prevent wars ; let us clean our persons, 
our dwellings, our towns, and cities ; let us promote the spread of 
science, and so prevent such evils." 

My opponent says God destroyed the Amalekites for their vilene^s 
and sins. How does he know ; The Bible does not say so. It says 
he destroyed them for an offence committed by some of their fore- 
fathers, between four and five hundred years before they were born. 

He a*ks our views again, about Providence. We answer, the laws 
of the universe are, in our view, fixed and unchanging. We never 
expect God to alter them. Instead of asking God to interfere with 
them, we try to find them out, and conform to them. 

My opponent says the earth bears traces of the deluge of Noah. 
Geologists say otherwise. Even Professor Hitchcock, a theological 
geologist, and Dr. Pye Smith, and others, declare that the earth bears 
no trace of such a flood as that described in Genesis. They say the 
earth bears traces of several partial deluges ; but they add, that 
they all took place innumerable ages before the appearance of man on 
the earth. 

He says the language of the Bible is accommodated to human modes 
of thought and expression. So it is. There is nothing either in the 
thoughts or expression to mark it as divine. And. when a thing looks 
human, why not regard it as human. The writers of the Bible used 
human language, because they had no other language. They express 
human thoughts, because they had no other though s. They give us 
the best and the highest thoughts they had. They believed God was 
like a man, and they spoke of him accordingly. They believed that God 
eojld not work six days straight ahead, without being tired ; and they 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



39 



said so. Their ignorance coloured all they sa'd, whether about God, 
creation, or history. To suppose that God would talk to man, and 
yet utter neither truer thoughts, nor better language than ignorant 
men, seems monstrous. Why not leave the work to men, unless he 
could do it better ? 

The Doctor says, that when God is said to rest, the evil effect of 
such language is obviated by other expressions, which teach us that 
the everlasting fainteth not, neither is weary. The true explanation 
would be to say, that the later Bible writers had worthier views of 
God than the earlier ones, and, therefore, spoke of him more truly. 
But the Doctor is greatly mistaken if he thinks a foolish passage is 
proved to be all right, because another contradicts it. The Doctor's 
rule of interpretation, if acknowledged, would enable a person to ex- 
plain away the contradictions, errors, and immoralities of every book 
on earth. His plan amounts in fact, to setting the Bible language 
aside, and rjutting his own in its place. It is making the Bible over 
again. We have no doubt the Doctor could easily make a truer and 
a better book, but that is not his business at present. His business is 
to prove the divinity of the present Bible. 

The Doctor says I represent God as encouraging immorality. I do 
not. I only say the Bible represents God as doing so. 

The Doctor asks, in reference to the polygamy, &c, of God's 
favourites, " Did not his law forbid them, and his providence punish 
them V* We answer, " No." The law says, " Thou shalt not com- 
mit adultery;" but it does not define adultery. It does not say that 
to have many wives and concubines is adultery. So far from the Bible 
representing God as punishing Abraham or David, it represents God 
as justifying them in all the abominations I have named. The Bible 
expressly says that Abraham kept God's voice, his statutes, his 
judgment, and his laws. Of David it says, that he did wrong in 
nothing but in the case of Uriah the Hittite. His polygamy, his 
deceit, his treachery, are nowhere blamed. They are all justified. 
Solomon with his thousand wives and mistresses, is pronounced the 
wisest man that ever lived. The law plainly did not regard anything as 
adultery, except the seduction of a married woman while her hus- 
band was living. A strange law that could allow a man to have 
seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, and yet permit 
him to be regarded as a man of purity. 

The Doctor says I charge the Bible with representing God as par- 
tial because he chose one people from among the rest. This was not 
all. I stated that it represented God as loving Jacob and hating 
Esau, before either of them was born, or had done either good or evil. 
He says God is always partial, — that he gives to one man health, to 
another sickness ; to one wealth, to another poverty ; to one rank 
and high station, to another a humble position. For ourselves, we do 
not regard all these things as the gifts of God. W^e think men have 
a great deal to do in making themselves healthy or unhealthy, rich or 
poor, high or low. It would be better to teach men to trace their 
poverty or want of health to their indolence, their ignorance, their 
want of economy, or to the ignorance, the selfishness, and injustice of 
others, and urge them to try to cure them, than to teach them to 
throw the blame of all their -sufferings on God. The tendency of 
tracing all our sufferings directly to God is most injurious. 



40 



DISCUSSION ON TKK BIBLE. 



He says God is partial in the endowments of his grace. We 
know the Orthodox theology so represents him ; but we think such 
representations blasphemous. 

He says T told you that God demands human sacrifices. I only 
said the Bible represents God as demanding them. 

Having now disposed of the remarks of my opponent, I return to 
the subject on which I was speaking w T hen I closed my .last speech. 
I was speaking of the family institution. I showed that we had to 
learn the true form of the family institution from Nature, — that the 
Bible forms of the family institution, which my opponent so foolishly 
and thoughtlessly applauded, are vicious, unnatural, revolting. You 
cannot praise the true family institution, without condemning the 
B.ble forms of that institution. 

The Doctor says worshippers become like the Gods they worship. 
This is not always the case, as we could easily show. There is, 
however, some truth in it. Men ought, therefore, to be careful which 
of the Bible Gods they worship ; for some of them are most cruel, 
unjust and revengeful. No doubt, much of the cruelty and savage 
malignity we see in professing Christians, may be traced to their 
worship of a revengeful and malignant God. 

The Doctor thinks the ten commandments is a standard of virtue. 
It is no such thing. It neither forbids all that is evil, nor commands 
all that is good. Nor does it define the evils that it does forbid, or 
the good that it commands. It is wholly vague. It says, " Thou 
shalt not commit adultery ;" but, as I have shown, it does not de- 
fine adultery. It does not say whether polygamy and concubinage 
are adultery or not. Nor does the law name fornication or other 
forms of uncleanness. Again, the law says, " Thou shalt not take 
the name of the Lord thy God in vain but it tells not what it is 
to take the name of God in vain. It leaves all uncertain. Besides, 
other portions of the Bible represent God as commanding what the 
ten commandments are supposed to forbid. The commandment says, 
" Thou shall not kill yet other passages represent God as com- 
manding his people to kill thousands and even tens of thousands of 
innocent persons at a time. The law says, " Remember the seventh 
day to keep it holy. On it, thou shalt do no manner of work," &c. 
What does this law require 1 That the seventh day shall be kept as 
Sabbath ? Why, then, is it not kept 1 " We substitute the first 
day for the seventh," say they. And will you thus publicly acknow- 
ledge ycur law to be so variable, so unfixed ? But do you keep the 
first day ? Do you really do no manner of work on that day ? Do 
you kindle no fires, cook no food, take no journeys ? " We do not 
keep it with Jewish strictness," is the answer. The truth is, they 
differ endlessly about the ivay in which it ought to be kept ; the day 
which ought to be kept ; the time when the day begins and ends. 
Every one modifies the law to suit his views or his convenience. The 
law is just what its interpreters choose to make it. It is just what 
every one chooses to make it. It is so with all the other commands. 
They fix nothing ; they define nothing. They leave men's notions 
all afloat. 

The Doctor says that Infidel morality is a nose of wax, which can 
be shaped to any one's liking. Supposing it to be so, we are no 
worse off than believers in the Bible. We have shown that the Bible 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



41 



rules of morality, even the best of them, have no fixed meaning, but 
may be interpreted in ten, a hundred, or a thousand different ways. 
The law respecting the Sabbath is interpreted in an endless variety of 
ways. It is next to impossible, if not quite impossible, to find two 
who interpret and apply it alike. It is so on other matters Not 
only have we hundreds of sects, all differing in their views of truth 
and duty, but endless differences among members and ministers of 
the same sect. The truth is, it is impossible to give a law in writing, 
which shall serve as a perfect rule of life to all ; or which shall serve 
as a standard of right and wrong to all men. Men are differently 
made, and require different laws. That which is duty to one man, 
is not always duty to another. The only law which can exactly fit 
the case of any individual, is the law written on his own nature. 
Every different man is a law to himself. His own peculiar make is 
his Jaw. We can neither eat, nor drink, nor work alike. We can- 
not fill the same situations ; we cannot pursue the same objects. Our 
duties differ as much as our persons. Our laws are as various as our 
organizations. To know our law, we must know ourselves. To do 
our duty, we must obey ourselves ; we must obey our own best 
thoughts and our best feelings and affections. When we do so, we 
are virtuous. If, when we do so, we break written laws, it is the 
written laws that are wrong. We make no pretensions to a written law, 
binding on all, enjoining on every one his whole duty. There is no 
such law. There can be no such law. But we have all the law we 
need. The Doctor asks, Would God give the bird a law to direct it 
at the proper season in its flight to other climates, and leave man, 
his noblest creature, without a law ? We answer, If the Bible be 
man's only law, he has done so with regard to the greater part of 
men. Not one in ten has the Bible. If, therefore, God has given 
them no law within them, he has left them lawless. He has dealt 
with them less kindly than with the birds. But we have a law within 
us — a sufficient law, which guides us as surely to virtue and to 
blessedness, as the instinct of the bird directs it on the wing. Let 
men be taught to read, and brought to obey, the law within, instead 
of being eternally perplexed and bewildered by a reference to old con- 
tradictory laws, and they will become truly virtuous and happy. To 
obtain a perfect rule of life in my opponent's way, is a hopeless task. 
You must first have a perfect book, to begin with ; and there is no 
evidence that ever such a book existed. You must next have assu- 
rance that the book has never been altered or corrupted — that it has 
always been infallibly copied, infallibly printed, and infallibly trans- 
lated. And these are all impossible things, without innumerable 
miracles. And we have proof that no such miracles have ever been 
wrought. Take an Orthodox Protestant, who wishes to get a per- 
fect rule of faith and practice in the shape of a book. He asks, 

1. Did God ever give such a book 1 There is no proof that he 
ever did. There is proof to the contrary. 

3. If he did, how large was it ? How many parts were there ? To 
whom did he give it ? Did he give it all at one time ? If not, at 
how many times ! In how many places ? By how many persons ? 
What were the names of the persons by whom he gave it 1 What 
proof have we that they all understood what God told them ? That 
they wrote it down correctly ] Are their writings now in being ? 



42 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



There are no writings in existence, supposed by Christians to have 
come from Heaven, more than about a thousand years old ; and God 
is not supposed to have written any books for seventeen hundred 
years past. We have nothing, therefore, but second-hand copies 
Are they correct copies ? No ; they differ from each other. There 
are more various readings than words. Which are most correct ? It 
cannot be told. Where are v th.ose books 1 Five thousand miles 
away. Have we no copies of them 1 No. Nothing like them 1 
Yes. Exactly % No. We have several compilations, but no two 
alike. They are in Greek and Hebrew. Have we no translations ? 
Yes ; many. Are they correct ? There are no correct translations. 
The translations differ in hundreds of thousands of places. Which 
are best ? No one knows. You must take the one in common use. 
Is it easy to be understood 1 Some say, yes ; others, no. Some say, 
certain parts may be understood ; oilier parts not. Facts show that 
men cannot agree in interpreting any parts. Are there no infallible 
interpreters 1 None. Are we sure we have got the right books 1 No. 
That the books we have, come down to us unaltered ? No. Are 
we sure of nothing 1 Nothing. 

Suppose it were granted that the common English translation were 
really God's word, would the Protestant have an infallible guide ? 
By no means. He would still be at a loss for the true meaning. He 
reads, " He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none." 
Must he never keep more than one coat, then, so long as there is any 
one who has none 1 You must understand, says the priest, that some 
things in the Bible are of temporary obligation only, while others are 
of permanent obligation. Some things are binding on certain classes, 
not on all. Some are of local obligation ; others of universal obliga- 
tion. Again, some things are binding in their spirit and substance, 
but not in their letter and form. Besides, some things are figurative ; 
others, literal. And there are many different kinds of figures, and 
many different rules for interpreting them. Then, many things have 
to be modified. Things spoken absolutely, are to be modified, quali- 
fied, limited. So with examples. They are to be imitated with discre- 
tion. We may aim at the same end as our pattern did ; but not 
use the same means. We may cherish the same spirit, but not fol- 
low the same way of life. You must have the spirit of God to guide 
you, and the ministers of Christ to aid you. Then many commands 
are general ; but they require special application, according to times, 
circumstances and persons. And you are not yourself infallible. 
Indeed, your heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately 
wicked. And whoso trusteth in his own heart, or leaneth to his own 
understanding, is a fool. And this is the way you supply the poor 
Protestant with his infallible rule of lite. You place him in the 
midst of a world of uncertainty. You torture him almost to death 
with perplexity and fear, that you may compel him to place himself 
under priestly guidance, and leave himself at the priest's disposal. 

But would a good God give a law to the worm or the bird, and 
not to man 1 

We answer, No. And this proves that the Bible is not God's law : 
that the law of God to man, like the law of God to the worm, and to 
the bird, is within him. It is certain that the Bible has been given 
to very few. You must either acknowledge, therefore, that God has 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



43 



left the great majority of his creatures without law, or given them a law 
apart from the Bible. 

But there is enough of the Bible plain, it is said. Take the teach- 
ings of Jesus. Well ; take the teachings of Jesus. They are not 
plain. Nor are they always good when they are plain. Take the 
Sermon on the Mount. The first sentence is, " Blessed are the poor 
in spirit." What is it to be poor in spirit ? To be indifferent to 
riches ; to be willing to be poor ; to be content in poverty ; says one. 
Nothing of the kind, says another. It means, to have a low opinion 
of our own talents and virtues ; to feel that we are foolish and wicked. 
No such thing says a third. It means poor. The words in spirit 
are an interpolation. In the parallel passage in Luke, the words are, 
Blessed are the poor. And they are accompanied with the words, 
Woe unto you that are rich. Are, then, the poor really blessed ? 
Blessed above all others ? Are all the poor entitled to the kingdom 
of heaven ? The text, thus interpreted, says so. But what is it to 
be poor ? When may a man be called poor ? How poor must a 
man be to make him thus blessed 1 The Sermon on the Mount does 
not say. We are left in great uncertainty. The next sentence is, 
" Blessed are they that mourn." What is it to mourn 1 To weep, 
to lament, to cry out in sorrow, to feel and to express great grief. 
And are all who mourn, blessed ? You mistake, say the priest ; the 
meaning is, " Blessed are they that mourn for their sins," -Does the 
Bible say so 1 No. Why, then, do you say so ? It seems as if 
this should be the meaning. And so you put your own ideas in the 
place of Christ's, do you 1 If Christ had meant mourning for sins, 
could he not have said it 1 Would he not have said it ; But so it 
is ; the Bible fixes nothing. Critics, translators, interpreters, fix all. 
And they fix them in a thousand different ways. Even the best 
parts of the Bible are no infallible guide ; no guide at all, apart from 
our own good sense. Even those who pretend to take it as their 
guide, just force into the words their own ideas, before they follow 
them. They tell their guide which way to go, before they will follow 
him. Their guide says, " Take no thought for to-morrow, what ye 
shall eat, or what ye shall drink, or what ye shall put on." But will 
they follow him 1 Not they. They will take out the sense from his 
words, and put in another sense of their own, and then follow 
him. That is, they will take their own course, and make their guide 
follow them. [Calls of time up.] 

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG. 

(Generel and long-continued applause.) All that my opponent 
has said in regard to the character of the God of the Bible, is but 
another testimony to the truth of the Scripture, that the things of 
God are not naturally discerned. He has brought up a string of 
alleged contradictions in biblical language, which he could himself 
reconcile, if he was not as blind as a bat in an ivy-bush, or at noon- 
day. Any child who has received a Sunday-school education could 
explain them to him, could make them as plain as the nose upon his 
face, or upon mine. What has he done in his objections to the 
Bible account of Creation and the Deluge 1 He has given us asser- 
tion upon assertion, but not a grain of proof. He tells us that the 
Bible account is wrong, but does not show us how it is so. What 



i 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



is his version of these matters ? Come, Mr. Barker, give us a little 
o ? your philosophy, and set these things straight. (General applause.) 
We have his word that the Bible account is not to be relied upon. 
But does his saving so, make it so 1 Can his unsupported assertions 
invalidate the testimony of that sacred book 1 I protest against his 
couise in this matter. Mr. Barker appears here to make almost in- 
numerable assertions. He comes with strings of reporters to put them 
down, and, next morning, they appear in the papers, conveying the 
impression that I have not answered them. Why, it would take 
ten men to follow him up in all his arguments. I do not know in 
advance what they will be : it is impossible for me to take notes of 
them ; I cannot write quick enough to put them down on paper. 
His arguments to prove the Scriptures are the works of men, are 
worthy of the rotten cause he supports. One does not know some- 
times how to make them out. 

My opponent cavils at the character of Jehovah. He does not 
think it consistent with mercy that He should give men over to strong 
delusions, that they may beleive a lie. This judicial blindness is 
part of the penalty imposed by Jehovah upon sin. When men har- 
den their hearts, and wilfully reject the truth, they are abandoned to 
their own weakness an<? passions, given up of God, until they are at 
last suddenly cut off in their rebellion agamst Him. This is the 
usual method of Jehovah with man. When his people will not 
walk in His ways, they are left by him to a state of judicial blind- 
ness. This is a truth in his moral government. Let those who are 
disposed to reject his law take it to heart, and think a great deal 
over it. I said last night, that, before the close of this debate, my 
opponent would be driven to take refuge in the bogs of Atheism. 
That remark has been justified by what we have heard to-night. 
My opponent says, that the God of the Bible is unjust, if he leaves 
men to fall into error. Nay, who art thou, man ! that repliest 
against God ? The Bible teaches that men are dependent upon 
divine protection and guidance, but, that if men will utterly rebel 
against God, and harden their hearts against him, he will leave them 
to themselves. He says to the incorrigible sinner, Depart ! and he 
departs. He proclaims woe to them that reject His law, and will 
not listen to His counsels. Then it is that the evil spirits take pos- 
session of the tenement abandoned by the Holy Ghost. Then it is, 
that Satan, ever lying in wait, seeking whom he may devour, gains 
the mastery of the human soul. Its citadel is dismantled, its walls 
are broken down, its gates unhinged, and it becomes the stronghold 
of the devil. In this sense, is God said to send strong delusions, 
that men may believe a lie. In this manner does man unseatGod 
from the throne of his heart, to become subject only to Satan. Is 
not he unjust to himself ? Is not the character of God vindicated ? 
Every principle of His government may not be received of man; 
every one may not be perfectly plain to human reason ; but every one 
is right, not only for those who are saved, but those who perish also. 

My opponent cited the Bible account of Jephtha's vow as one in 
which the character of God is defamed. 1 will read it. It is so 
clear, that I was not at all surprised that my opponent, notwithstand- 
ing his habitual coolness, exhibited signs of impatience when I asked 
him to read it. 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



45 



" And Jeplitha vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt with- 
out fail deliver the children of Amnion into mine hands, then shall it be that 
whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return 
in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will 
offer it up for a burnt-offering. So Jephtha passed over unto the children of Am- 
mon to fight against them ; and the Lord delivered them into his hands. And 
he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty- 
cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus 
the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel And 
Jephtha came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold his daughter came out to 
meet him with timbrels and with dances : and she was his only child ; beside 
her, he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass when he saw her, 
he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter ! thou hast brought me very 
low, and thou art one of them that trouble me : for I have opened my mouth 
unto the Lord, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, my Father, if 
thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do unto me according to that 
which hath proceeded out of thy month ; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken 
vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon. And 
she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me : let me alone for two 
months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my vir- 
ginity, I and my fellows. And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two 
months; and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon 
the mountains. And ii> came to pass, at the end of two months, that she re- 
turned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had 
vowed : and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel that the 
daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephtha the Gil- 
eadite four days in a year." Judges 11 : 30 — 40. 

My opponent adduced this as an instance where God had demand- 
ed a human sacrifice. 

Mr. Barker. — No ; I adduced two other instances where the 
Bible represents God as doing that ; and I adduced the case of 
Jephtha as an instance of human sacrifice narrated in the Bible, 
without any expression of blame. 

Dr. Berg. — Jephtha alone was responsible for his act. He him- 
self was the guilty agent, and without the sanction, expressed or 
implied, of Jehovah. To make the vow was a crime ; and it was 
a greater crime to fulfil it. Jephtha knew the law, and he knew that 
it forbade the sacrifice of a human beirg as a burnt-offering ; he 
knew that the beasts were the prescribed victims ; he could not have 
made a greater mistake upon this subject. God had expressly for- 
bidden human sacrifices. My opponent must bear that point in 
mind. The anger of Jehovah was directed against the Gentile nations 
in the vicinity of the Jews, because they passed their children through 
the fire to Moloch. How, then, could it be supposed that he would 
sanction similar practices among his chosen people 1 

And here allow me to suggest as to whether the language of this 
narration is not figurative. May it not mean only that Jephtha's 
daughter was set apart to the service of Jehovah ? The nuns of the 
Romish church are often said to be " buried alive." I have, in my 
time, said many hard things against that church. I have probably said 
of their veiled and cloistered nuns, that they are " buried alive," but 
I certainly did not mean that the earth was heaped upon them, and 
that they were suffocated before the breath was out of their bodies. 
We read that Jephtha's daughter bewailed her virginity, and that her 
companions bewailed it with her upon the mountains. And, after- 
wards, the daughters of Israel mourned for the same reason. All 
these statements are without meaning, if she was offered for a burnt- 
sacrifice. 



46 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



My opponent spoke feelingly of the curse pronounced on the ser- 
pent, He thought this reptile had been dealt with too severely. 
Now he may be a better judge of snakes than I am, (laughter,) but it 
strikes me that the universal abhorrence with which that reptile has 
ever been regarded by our race, is one of the strongest collateral proofs 
of the truth of that part of the Bible. 

Though I would greatly -prefer making positive progress in the ar- 
gument of the question, I will proceed to notice other objections made 
to the Bible by my opponent. He charges that sacred book with en- 
couraging polygamy. I do not deny that polygamy was practised in 
ancient times, and that there is a faithful record of the facts in the 
Bible. Shall its sanction be inferred from this ? Solomon had many 
wives, but no Christian ever thought he was doing right in this. Let 
my opponent lay his finger on the text in the Word of God that 
sanctions polygamy. Where is it said that a man may have two, 
three, four, or eight wives ? The argument is poor that infers the ap- 
probation of the Bible, because it says men did what they ought not 
to have done. Its teachings are pure on this subject. How many 
wives had Adam ? One. How many had Noah ? One. And how 
many had Noah's sons 1 One a-piece. If you would know what the 
Bible teaches on this subject, consult the New Testament. The 
Saviour has settled this whole matter. Let my opponent read what 
he says, and it will save him a mint of trouble : — " Have ye not read 
that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and 
female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, 
and they twain shall be one flesh.'' Matthew 12 : 4, 5. 

There is not a single passage which can be interpreted as an appro- 
bation of a plurality of wives. Moses, because of the hardness of their 
hearts, had permitted certain things ; but from the beginning, we are 
told by the Saviour, it was not so. In not a solitary instance can it 
be shown that God commanded his people to practice polygamy, or 
commended it. The moral government of God is progressive. In his 
wisdom, he has permitted some facts to develop themselves, probably 
in order that men might see and know the full evils resulting from 
them. He may have allowed the existence of polygamy, that men 
might see it to be the evil it is. 

In his remarks upon the Sabbath my opponent Las made a glorious 
blunder. He thinks the Sabbath a Jewish institution ! No ; the 
Sabbath was not made for any nation or people, but for the whole 
world. It is coeval with humanity itself. The Saviour says that the 
Sabbath was made for man, and not man for <he Sabbath. It was 
intended for Jew and for Gentile. It was consecrated, in order that 
God might establish an institution that would bless man for all future 
ages ; that there might be some cessation of the busy turmoil of life ; 
that the weary labourer might repose his jaded frame, and enjoy the 
refining and elevating influences of the family relation, and the enno- 
bling ones of worship ; that one day out of seven might be devoted to 
rest ; that there might be here on earth a type of the everlasting rest 
that remains for the people of God. 

[The above passage, as delivered, was one of elaborate rhetorica 
finish and beauty, most imperfectly rendered in our meagre sketch. It 
elicited long and enthusiastic plaudits. J 

My opponent speaks of Heaven. That word is not in the Infidel 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



47 



vocabulary. Where did he get it % What right has he, as an Infidel 
to speak of Heaven ? Fie perhaps, forgets that he is no longer a 
Methodist minister. (Laughter and applause.) 

It is singular, that what I said about the ever-present agency of 
Providence in the affairs of this world, should have driven my oppo- 
nent into the dreary regions of Atheism. He discards a particular 
superintending Providence, and represents this world as governed by 
laws that change not. But did these laws make themselves 1 Did 
they make the world ? Are they entirely independent of God ? Do 
they need no one to superintend their operations ? Will he pretend 
that God lives insulated from the creatures of his hands, from the 
world he made ? What abominable folly of Atheism. (General ap- 
plause.) In what he said of plagues, did he not avow his unblushing 
atheism ? (Enthusiastic applause.) And the marshes 1 (Renewed 
applause.) Agues come from marshes, do they ? But who fixed the 
law which makes agues come from marshes 1 (Applause.) My op- 
ponent reminds me of the heathen, who, being asked on what the 
world stood, replied " On a tortoise." But on what does the tortoise 
stand ? " On another tortoise." With Mr. Barker, too, there are 
tortoises all the way down. (Vehement and vociferous applause.) 



THIRD EVENING. 

[Notwithstanding the inclemency of the evening, the audience was 
almost, if not quite, as crowded as on the preceding evenings.] 

Mr. Illman, Moderator on the side of Mr. Barker, — I wish to 
secure for Mr. Barker, this evening, a candid and impartial hearing ; 
and for that end, make the request to the persons present, to abstain 
from all manifestations of applause. There is no person, I think, who 
deliberately wishes to be in error. For -my own part, I wish to know 
the exact truth. I am an old man, and am fast hastening to that 
period when I shall have to appear before the final Judge ; and I wish 
to say, then, that on this most important of all subjects, I have en- 
deavoured to arrive at none but correct conclusions. 

EEMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 

Mr. Barker took the stand. (Applause by a considerable number, 
and hisses by ajew, apparently to obtain silence.) I think the re- 
quest a reasonable one that there should be no expressions of strong 
feelings on either side. I am sure that those who favour my views 
will comply with it, in order that the discussion may proceed in order 
and quiet ; and I am sure that the friends present, on the other side 
will receive with respect, a similar request from Dr. Berg. 

I will proceed at once to the remarks made by my opponent in his 
last speech. 

The Doctor thinks that those passages which are quoted to prove 
that the Bible represents God as using deceit, only teach that God 



48 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



leaves those who wilfully reject the truth to themselves, and to the 
lusts of their own hearts. Let us read the passages, and see whether 
this is true : — 

"If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth 
thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake 
unto thee, saying. Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and 
let us serve them ; thou shalfc not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or 
that dreamer of dreams : for the Lord your God provethyou, to know whether 
ye love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul." 
Deut. 13: 1—3. 

There is nothing about judicial blindness here ; nothing about the 
people whom God tries by these delusions having previously forsaken 
the truth. Just the contrary. They are supposed to be stedfast in 
their adherence to God and His worship. And nothing is said about 
God leaving people to themselves. He employs dreamers and pro- 
phets. &c, to try their spiritual strength, and to satisfy himself as to 
whether they are incorruptible or not. 

The next passage is as follows : — 

"And he said, Hear thou, therefore, the word of the Lord : I saw the Lord sit- 
ting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him, on his right hand 
and on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go 
up and fall at Eamoth Gilead 1 And one said on this manner, and another said 
on that manner. And then came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord and 
said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him Wherewith 1 And 
he said, I will go forth, and 1 will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his 
prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also ; go forth 
and do so. Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the 
mouth of all those thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning 
thee." 1 Kings, 22: 19—23. 

Here God gives a direct command to a lying spirit to go forth and 
deceive Ahab. Ahab, it is true, is represented as being a bad man ; 
but their is nothing said about leaving him to himself, God positively 
deceives him, by causing a lying spirit to prophesy falsely through his 
prophets. 

I will now read from 2 Thess., 2:2: — 

"Whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and 
lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that 
perish, because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be 
saved. And for this cause, God shall send them strong delusions, that they 
should believe a lie ; that they all might be damned who believed not the 
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 

In this last passage, the parties deceived are said to have rejected 
the truth, and to have had pleasure in unrighteousness : but even in 
this case, God does> not leave the sinners to themselves. He sends 
them strong delusions. He works, or causes others to work, miracles, 
to deceive them. He gives to falsehood all the supposed accompan- 
iments and proofs of truth. He is represented as busily employing 
his positive agency to deceive. Thus are all my opponents theories 
exploded. Not one of them will bear to be tested. Thus do all his 
efforts to protect the scriptures fail. 

The Doctor says Jephtba's daughter was not offered as a burnt 
offering. He however, gives us no proof of his statement. The 
passage he read contradicted him. Let us read the passage again : — 

" And Jephtha vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said : If thou shalt without 
fail deliver the children of Amnion into mine hands, then it shall be that what- 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



49 



soever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in 
peace from the children of Amnion, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer 
it up for a burnt-offering." 

Further on in the same chapter, we read as follows : — 

" And it came to pass, at the end of two months, that she returned unto her 
father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed." 

Now, if Jephtha did not offer up his daughter as a b ;rnt-offering, 
the Bible says what is not true : for it says he vowed to do so, and 
that he did with her according to his vow. If he did offer her up a 
burnt offering, as the Bible says, our original charge is proved. 

But why, then, asks the Doctor, should she lament her virginity ? 
We answer, Is it not as great a calamity to die childless as to live 
childless ? She had the double calamity of childlessness and a pre- 
mature violent death. 

But the Doctor says she could not be offered as a burnt-offering, 
because the law forbids human sacrifices. We answer the law forbids 
people to put to death the children for the sins of their fathers : (Deut. 
24 : 16 ;) yet we have a number of passages which represent God as 
destroying the children for the sins of their fathers, and as commanding 
his people to do the same. So the law forbids the children of Israel 
to lie one to another ; yet David lies to Acish, and is justified by the 
Bible in so doing. The truth is, the Bible abounds in contradiction?. 
There is scarcely a sin which it forbids, which it does not, in other 
places, represent God himself as committing, or as commanding his 
people to commit. 

The Doctor says, if I will show him a passsge which represents God 
as commanding a person to have seven hundred wives and three 
hundred concubines, he will then allow that the Bible is an immoral 
book ; but not till then. But the Doctor would not require such proof 
of the immorality of any other book. Ke would not require such 
proof before he would allow the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or a 
Roman Catholic Book to be immoral. Suppose the Doctor should 
meet with a novel that should give its hero seven hundred wives and 
three hundred concubines, that should find no fault with him for 
having so many wives and concubines, but should hold him forth as a 
first-rate man ; should praise his wisdom, and declare that he was the 
wisest rnian that ever lived, or that ever should live ; would not the 
Doctor pronounce such a novel an immoral work ? Suppose a novel 
should represent its hero as a gambler, a thief, and a murderer, without 
giving the slightest hint that he did wrong in gambling, stealing, and 
murdering ; suppose it should praise him as the wisest man that had 
ever lived, though it did not recommend people to gamble, steal and 
commit murder, in so many words, would the Doctor hesitate to pro- 
nounce the book immoral ? Not a moment. Suppose some Infidel 
work should praise some Infidel highly, at the same time stating that 
he had only seven wives and t'ree mistresses, without recommending 
men generally to have so many ; would he say, " I will not allow the 
work to be an immoral book, till it can be shown that it commands 
men to have seven wives and three mistresses each ?" Judge ye. 
The Bible could not have more thoroughly sanctioned polygamy and 
concubinage, if it had commanded them ever so plainly. If it tells us 
that one man who had several wives kept God's commandments, — 

D 



50 



DISCUSSION ON THK BIBLE. 



that God gave another man several wives after he had made a collec- 
tion of wives for himself, — that this man with his two lots of wives 
turned not aside from following God in any thing, but did that which 
was right in God's tight in all things, save when he seduced the wife 
of a living man, and killed the husband to conceal his guilt > — and if 
finally, it tells us that the man who had the greatest number of wives 
and mistresses of all, was the wisest of them all, and the wisest that 
ever should be, it gives sanction to immorality that nothing can ex- 
ceed. No express command of vice can be more immoral than this. 

The Doctor says that polygamy w 7 as permitted by Moses on account 
of the hardness of the people's hearts : and he quoted part of the 
passage in Matt. 19 : 8, as proof. Now, the passage has no reference 
wha'tever to polygamy, but only to divorce. To prove this, I will 
read the passage : — " He saith unto them, Moses, because of the 
hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your teives, but from 
the beginning it was not so." It is nowhere said that God or even 
Moses, permitted polygamy and concubinage, for the hardness of their 
hearts. 

The Doctor next says, that God permitted polygamy to exist, so 
that its evils might develope themselves, and be manifest in the 
quarrels of families ; that men might see it to be the evil it is. This 
is a trenendous explanation. It makes the character of God worse 
than the Bible does. It makes bad worse. But where did the Doc- 
tor get his wonderful information 1 From the Bible ? No. Can he 
then find out God's secret motives by his own unaided intellect 1 He 
told us such a thing was impossible ; that man could not pry into his 
motives ; that they were as high as heaven and deep as hell. 

He asks me where T got the word (l heaven" — thinking I had 
forgot I had been a Methodist preacher. I answer, that I know of 
r o nation or country under heaven where the word is not known ; no 
language that does not contain it, or an equivalent w r ord. 

The Doctor asks — Who fixed the law which makes agues come from 
marshes 1 and that some one must have done it. All we said was, 
that, in our view, the law T s of Nature are fixed ; that health and 
disease are the results of the operation of unchanging laws. This 
was the doctrine which the friends of my opponent scouted and de- 
rided. Yet nothing can be more true. We see that drunkenness 
causes headache, lowness of spirit, delirium tremens ; that marshes 
and stagnant waters cause agues ; that gluttony causes apoplexy ; that 
putrefying flesh and other substances cause fevers and pestilence. 
And so with other diseases. They are all governed by natural laws, 
and not by special interpositions of Providence. The more enlightened 
see this, and hence they are beginning, when cholera approaches a 
city, to cleanse the streets, to keep the atmosphere pure, and to warn 
the people to be temperate in their habits, as a better means of pre- 
venting or checking its ravages, than fasting and humiliation. 

The Doctor contends that our principles have an immoral ten- 
dency. We, however, think just the contrary. If the Bible were a 
book of unmixed truth and wisdom, — if it were proved to be the law 
of God, — if there were no other law binding on man, outside the 
Bible, the Doctor's charge might be true ; but such is not the case. 
The Bible is not a mass of unmixed truth and righteousness : it is a 
monstrous jumble of truth and error, good and evil, It is not the law 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



5 1 



of God ; so that in denying its authority, we do not question the 
authority of God. Nor do we reject the Bible as a whole ; we only 
reject those parts of it which are false and bad, indecent and immoral. 
Those parts that are true and good, we retain. We have, besides, 
all the teachings of our natures, and all the revelations of the universe 
at large. W e have, also, all the lessons that experience, observation, 
and history can teach, We have, in short, all the truth, and all 
the laws of God's great universe binding on us. Freedom from Bible 
authority leaves us at liberty to obey the law of God as it is written 
on our own nature. And we have no doctrine of indulgencies ; no 
promise of impunity in sin. We believe that whatever we sow, we 
must reap ; that we must bear the natural penalty of every sin we 
commit. We believe that every sin is punished, — punished now- 
punished in proportion to its magnitude, and that there are no excep- 
tions. We believe in no means of escaping punishment when sin has 
been committed. We do not believe that sin is ever forgiven ; that 
the punishment affixed to it can ever be remitted. Man must en- 
dure the natural results of his sins, without any abatement. If a 
man will drink intoxicating drinks, he must suffer headache, depres- 
sion of mind, and all the other effects of his sin. If he indulges in 
licentiousness, the result must be the injury or ruin of his physical 
system, the debasement of his moral nature, the loss of intellectual 
power, and unfitness for the duties and enjoyments of married and 
social life. If he be unjust and cruel, he must be hated, cursed, and 
perhaps destroyed. If he sin but once, the punishment will not be 
so great, and a return to duty will soon abate and almost undo the evil 
effects of the sin : but something has been lost for ever. If sin be 
persisted in, the evil is increased, and ruin follows. We believe in 
no endurance of the punishment of sin by proxy, nor in any substi- 
tutionary righteousness. W e have no idea that the evil effects of a 
vicious life can be evaded by a death-bed repentance, or by faith in 
another's merits, or the cloak of another's righteousness. If we believed 
that we might sow thistles and reap wheat, that we might leave our 
own garden to run wild, and yet be supplied with flowers and fruits 
from a neighbour's garden, the temptation to indolence might be too 
strong for us. But we believe that we must reap exactly what we 
sow, that our lot must be determined by our own character, that as 
we act so we must fare through every period of our existence. As 
easily might we make a world, or change the laws of the world now 
in being, as escape the rewards of our own doings. No doctrine can 
be more opposed to sin than this. No doctrine can present stronger 
motives to virtue. 

It is very different with our opponents. I have no wish to be 
offensive ; but truth compels me to say, that no views can be more 
immoral than many of those which aie held bv the generality of 
believers in the divine authority of the Bible. Look at the license 
given to sensuality by the Bible itself ; seven hundred wives and three 
hundred concubines. A house full of slaves, with liberty to use the 
female portion as wives or concubines. But this is little. Look at 
the doctrines held by believers in the divine authority of the Bible. 
Take the Catholic doctrine of priestly absolution and indulgences. For, 
money and penance, or for money alone, a man can obtain, not only 
absolution from sins past, but libeity to commit still further sins. 



52 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



This is bad enough. But Protestantism has something worse. The 
doctrine of Orthodox Protestants is, that a man may sin his whole life 
through, and yet escape the punishment of sin, and get safe to eternal 
blessedness and glory, by repentance and faith in the hour of d. j ath ; 
that the drunkard, the gambler, the thief, the kidnapper, the slave- 
holder, the murderer, may follow their horrible courses through a long 
life, and yet escape the punishment due to their misdeeds, through 
faith in the sufferings and righteousness of another : that 

" While the lamp holds out to hum, 
The vilest sinner may return." 

They teach that sin may be forgiven, all sin, except the blasphemy 
against the Holy Ghost, which they are careful to tell people none 
can now commit. Thev even teach, that the more sins a man gets 
forgiven, the more he will love God ; that the greater the sinner, the 
more glorious the saint. They teach that no man is saved by works ; 
that men are saved by faith alone, by reliance on the atoning death 
and meritorious righteousness of another. Thus men are encouraged 
to believe that they may sow the seed of sin all their life, and yet, 
by faith in another, reap a harvest of eternal blessedness. A more 
licentious doctrine cannot be conceived. Yet it is preached in every 
Orthodox pulpit, and mingled in ail their prayers and hymns. I 
attended a service in this city, one Sunday, and the following hymn 
was read by a minister and sung by the congregation : — 

" Lord, thy imjmted righteousness 
My beauty is, my glorious dress, 
Mitl flaming worlds in this arrayed, 
With joy shall I lift up my head. 

" When from the dust of death I rise, 
To claim my mansion in the skies, 
Even then, this shall be all my plea, 
Jesus has lived and died for me. 

" Bold shall I stand in that great day, 
For who aught to my charge shall say ? 
While through his blood absolved I am 
From sin's tremendous guilt and shame." 

Here we have an indulgence long and large, without money and 
without price. It is bad enough to have indulgences of limited ex- 
tent, offered for money ; but to have an unlimited indulgence pro- 
claimed, without money and without price ; to be told that Jesus 
has made a full atonement for all the sins of those who believe in 
him — sins past, present, and to come, and has purchased all the bless- 
edness and glories of heaven, to bestow as a free gift on all who trust 
in his blood and merits ; to be told that a man may live a whole 
life in the vilest practices, " yet while the lamp of life continues burn- 
ing, his sins may all be pardoned, and his soul enriched with all the 
treasures of glory, through faith alone," is the most awful and infinite 
encouragement to every kind of sin that can possibly be conceived. 
Yet this is the Orthodox Gospel. We do not charge the whole on 
the Bible ; but it is the doctrine of our opponents ; and there is 
much in the Bible in favour of it. And these are the men to charge 
our doctrines with a licentious tendency! 

People Jeel the doctrines of Orthodoxy to be immoral. Tt is the 
immorality of the doctrines that makes so many cling to them. It 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



.08 



is here they find consolation. The doctrine makes them easy. It 
enables them to sin with less anxiety. The opposite doctrine does not 
vield such encouragement in sin. It troubles sinners. It makes them 
uneasy in their sins. It tends to drive them from their sins. I can 
illustrate this by an anecdote or two. I had been preaching once, to 
show that all would fare according to their deeds ; that the Orthodox 
doctrine of the atonement was a false doctrine ; that trust in Christ's 
merits was a delusion ; that there were no such merits to trust in. A 
man who heard me, as he went away, said to a friend of mine, 
" That is a serious doctrine. Here I have been trusting in the merits 
of Christ for fifteen years, and now it seems there is no such thins? to 
trust in. If every one is to receive according to his deeds, it is time 
for me to look about me." 

In a debate between a friend of mine, and an Orthodox person, my 
friend contended that persons who held our views were as good, as 
pure, as kind, as charitable, as other people, if not better. " Yes," 
said the advocate of Orthodoxy, " they had need be good ; they have 
nothing else to trust to." Nothing could be more natural or mure true. 
The Orthodox were not under any necessity to be good ; they had 
something else to trust to. The heretics were obliged to be good ; as 
they had no hope of sinning with impunity. It is the advocates of 
the divine authority of the Bible, then, who are preaching licentious 
doctrine's ; who are undermining the foundations of morality, and 
scattering every where the seeds of vice. We oppose their immoral 
teachings. We preach eternal renovating truth, and inculcate obedi- 
ence to the unchanging laws of Nature and of God. 

A few more words with regard to the rule of the Scripture inter- 
pretation insisted on by my opponent, and so generally adopted by 
advocates of the superhuman origin of the Bible. When we quote 
passages which represent God as subject to human imperfections 
and vices, or w T hich give false representations of creation, &c, they 
try to get over the difficulty by saying, that God, in writing the 
Bible, used human language in its current acceptation at the time the 
book was written ; that he did this condescending'y, to accommo- 
date himself to human weakness. The meaning of all this is, when 
put into plainer words, that God, in writing the Bible, wrote 
just as a man of those times would have written, if he had had the 
Bible to write ; that he used the same style, the same words, and 
expressed himself agreeably to the notions generally held on the 
subjects on which he wrote. The people, for instance, of those days, 
believed God to be like a man, and spoke of him as such ; and God, 
when he wrote the Bible, spoke of himself in the same way. He 
spoke of himself as a man, or as subject to human imperfections. 
Though he knew the people were wrong in their notions of him, he 
did not tell them so ; but spoke as if he thought them right. In 
other w T ords, God give his own sanction to their erroneous ideas and 
forms of expression. To unprejudiced men, the fact, that a book was 
written just in the st\le and after the manner of an ignorant man, 
would be considered proof that it was written by an ignorant man. 
This is the way we judge with regard to other books ; and why 
should we not judge thus with regard to the Bible ? Besides, where 
is your internal evidence of the divine origin of the Bibie, if you allow 
that it is written in the style and after the manner of men ? Again, 



54 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



it is a reflection, a blasphemous reflection on God, to say that when 
he speaks or writes, he speaks or writes like ignorant, erring men : 
that instead of speaking what he knows, he speaks what his ignorant 
creatures think : that when he knows the truth, he yet speaks of him- 
self erroneously. 

We are told, God would not be understood, if he spoke of things 
as they really are. But where is the proof ? He cannot be under- 
stood when he speaks of tilings as they are not. He had better not 
be understood, than be understood to speak falsely. The worst that 
could follow in case he spoke of things truly, would be to be misun- 
derstood : and that would be no worse than to be understood as 
teaching error and falsehood. Besides, why speak on a subject at 
all, if he could not speak on it truly 1 And why not leave all the 
writing to men, if men were unable to understand any higher or more 
truthful kind of writing than their own. Why should God write at 
all, unless he could write in a better style than men ? And if the 
Bible, or the earlier portions of the Bible, are not written in a style 
superior to that of man's style, why suppose it to have been written 
by any being superior to man 1 

Allow the use of your rale of interpretation to the Mohammedan, 
and it will enable him to explain away all the errors and inconsisten- 
cies of the Koran. You say, the Koran represents God as cruel. 
"God chose so to represent himself," answers the Mohammedan, "in 
condescension to human weakness." "The Koran allows polygamy," 
you add. "God did not give the best law to our fathers, but the best 
they were willing or able to receive," adds the Mohammedan. "The 
Koran gives a false account of creation," you add. "God used the 
language of the times in which he wrote, in its current acceptation ; 
he could not bring up men's ideas to the truth, so he let himself down 
to their ideas, in condescension to human weaknes," replies the 
Mohammedan. And what can you answer ? You have given him 
weapons, and he conquers you with them. 

So with the Mormonite. Allow him the use of your rule of inter- 
pretadon, and he will succeed quite as well in defending the super- 
human origin of his Book, as you can in defending' the superhuman 
origin of the Bible. Your rule woulcl serve the purpose of the Persian, 
the Hindoo, the Chinese, just as well. You say to the Hindoo, 
"Your sacred books speak as if there were thirty millions of Gods." 
"True," answers the Bramhim ; "when God wrote the book, our 
forefathers believed in thirty millions of Gods ; and he generously 
condescendad to adapt his language to our forefathers' ideas. They 
could not have understood him, if he had spoken of himself according 
to strict truth ; so he spoke of himself according to the prevailing 
errors." "But your sacred books give a very ridiculous and unphi- 
los >phical account of the creation of the world." "Very true. God 
wrote the books in a childish and unphilosophical age. He found it 
would be impossible to bring people to think of the things in accord- 
ance with strict philosophical truth ; so he spoke of them in accordance 
with the prevailing ideas and representations, till men should find out 
the truth for themselves, and so be able to put into his words a higher 
meaning." We repeat, if God should write a book on the principle 
supposed, the tendency would be to perpetuate error, — to close men's 
eyes against the truth when revealed by Nature. The tendency of 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



55 



the Bible, when believed to be of divine authority, is, to prejudice 
men against the revelations of Nature, or the discoveries of science. 
This must always be the tendency of such a way of speaking by public 
teachers. The use of unphilosophical language in common conver- 
sation may do no harm ; but the use of such language, by a teacher or 
writer, when he undertakes to be your instructor, to impart to you 
the knowledge of God, of his works and of his will, the case is very 
different. Suppose your missionaries to China, to adopt the rule 
which you say God adopted in writing the Bible. They adapt their 
instructions to the low and childish notions of the Chinese. The 
Chinese believe in the divinity of images of wood and stone. The 
missionaries know they are in error, but doubt whether they are capa- 
ble of being brought at once to understand the truth. So they adapt 
their discourses and tracts to the prevailing ideas and ways of speaking. 
They speak of the stone and wooden images, as the Chinese speak of 
them. They speak of the customs, manners, laws and religious cere- 
monies, as the Chinese speak of those things. They pretend all the 
time to be revealing the character and will of God. What would be 
the result ? The people would be strengthened in their false belief, 
and encouraged in their foolish ways. If missionaries should at 
length say, "All this while we have, in great condescension to your 
weakness, been adapting our way of speaking to your ignorance ; but 
now it is time to speak of things as they really are ; — your Gods are 
idols ; they are. powerless ; your worship is a lie ; your customs 
are foolish and vicious ; you must change and reform ;*' the Chinese 
would justly charge the missionaries with fraud. The mission- 
aries would lose their reputation ; they would no longer be trusted. 
The Chinese might say, " If you have cheated us once, how know we 
but you are cheating us again ? If you used a lie at first, out of con- 
descension to us, you may be using one now, out of regard to your- 
selves. 

And, indeed, if we allow that God has once used false representa- 
tions of things, how shall we know that be ever uses any thing else ? 
Your principle destroys itself. It overturns the very foundations of 
your system, yet to such j efuges of lies as this, men will flee, rather 
than give up their foolish systems. But the truth advances and' 
sweeps such refuges away. 

A few words more on the cases of Abraham and David. My op- 
ponent says, the immoralities of David and Abraham are not sanction- 
ed or justified by the Bible. Let us see what the Bible says on this 
subject. I read from 1 Kings, 15 : 5 : — 

"Because David did that which wasright in the eyes of the Lord, and turn' 
ed not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life 
save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." 

Now, here every act of David is approved, except one. We will 
now see what some of the acts of David were. I read from I Sam , 21 : 

" And David arose, and fled that day, for fear of Saul, and went to Achish, 
the king of Gath And the servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David, 
the king of the land ? Did they not sing one to another of him in dances, 
saying, Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands 1 And 
David laid up these words in his heart, and was sore afraid of Achish, the 
king of Gath. And he changed his behaviour before them, and feigned him- 
self mad in their hands, aud scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his 
spittie fall down upon his beard. Then said Achish unto his servants. So, ye 
see the man is mad— Wherefore, then, have ye brought him to mel" 



56 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



Now, the law says, Lie not one to the other ; but David here is 
represented as lying, if not in words, in deeds. He deceives his host 
and friend. 

Again we read, 1 Sam , 27 : h : — 

" And David said unto Achish, If I have now found grace in thine eyes, let 
them give me a place in some town in the country, that I may dwell there ; 
for why should thy servant dwell in the royal city with thee ] Then Achish 
gave him Ziklag that day, wherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto the Kings of Judah, 
unto this day. And the time that David dwelt in the country of the Philis- 
tines was a full year and four months. And David and his men went up and 
invaded the Geshusites, and the Gezarites, and the Amalekites ; lor those na- 
tions were of old the inhabitants of the land as thon goest to Shur, even unto 
the land of Egypt. And David smote the land, and left neither man nor wo- 
man alive ; and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the 
camels, and the apparel, and returned and came to Achish. And Achish 
said, Whither have ye made a road to-day ? And David said, against the 
south of Judah, and against the soath of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south 
of theKenite3. And David saved neither man nor woman alive to bring 
tidings to Gath, saying, lest they should tell on us, saying so did David, and 
so will be his manner, all the while he dwelleth in the country of the Philis- 
tines. And Achish believed David, saying : He hath made his people 
Israel bitterly to abhor him ; therefore he shall be my servant for ever." 

Here is a frightful mixture of lying, treachery and cruelty. I say 
nothing here of his many wives, and other sins. The deeds before 
us are enough. Here is a man who feigns himself mad, to impose on 
a friend and benefactor,— who sheds the blood of his friend's people 
like water, — who murders every living soul, lest any should be left to 
make known his treachery and cruelty,— who takes advantage of his 
friend's generosity and confidence / to perpetuate the most atrocious 
crimes, and multiply, from time to time, the very basest deeds. Yet 
the Bible, which records these horrid crimes and infamous deeds, 
assures us, u that David did that which was right in the eyes of the 
Lord, and turned not aside from any thing he commanded him, all 
the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." 

So with regard to Abraham. 'Though he had already a wife, he 
takes one of his female slaves as a wife, and has offspring by her. 
Pie turns cut his slave wife and her child into the wilderness. He 
buys slaves and breeds staves. He teaches his wife to deceive, to 
screen him from danger. He stands by, and allows his wife to be 
taken and carried off by another, without even venturing to say that 
she was his wife ; satisfied to get off without personal violence : I 
cannot describe such conduct. Yet the Bible, that tells these dirty 
and disgraceful stories, represents God as saying, " Abraham obeyed 
my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and 
my laws." Gen. 26 : 5. \ cannot conceive what kind of a book it 
must be to sanction immorality, if the Bible does not sanction it. 

I will now briefly recur to the Bible accounts of creation. The 
Bi'' le not only contradicts the revelations of Astronomy, Meteorology 
and Geology, in its account of creation, but contradicts itself. It 
gives contradictory accounts of the origin of day and night. In Gen- 
esis 1 : 3 — 5, we read : — 

" And God said, Let there be light : a there was light. And God saw 
the light, that it was good : and God divided the light from the darkness. 
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night : and the 
evening and the morning were the first da 

Here, then, we have light created, the light separated from the 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



darkness, and day f and night distinguished. We have then an ac- 
count of three days and nights, three evenings and mornings. Then 
comes the following as the work of the fouith day, Gen. 1 : 14 — 1 9 : — 

"And God said, Let ther/e be lights in the firmament of heaven, to divide 
the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for 
days and for years. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven 
to give light upon the earth : and it was so. And God made two great 
lights ; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the 
night : he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of heaven 
to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day, and over the night, and 
to divide the light from the darkness : and God saw that it was good. And 
the evening and the morning were the fourth day." 

Here the whole work of making day and night, separating the light 
from the darkness, giving light to earth, &c, which had been done 
three days before, is done again. We have first light, and day and 
night, and morning and evening, without sun, moon, or stars ; then 
sun, moon and stars are made to give us these things, after we have 
already had them three days. 

We have also contradictory accounts of the creation of man, In 
the first chapter, God is represented as creating the lower animals 
first, and man and woman after ; while in the second chapter, God is 
represented as making man first, the low-r animals next, and woman 
last of all, an indefinite period after. The passages are as follows : — 
Genesis 1-: 24 — 28 : — 

" And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, 
cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after its kind : and it was 
so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their 
kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind : and God 
saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after 
our likeness : and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the 
fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creep- 
ing thing that creepeth upon, the earth. So God created man in his own 
image, in the image of God created he him ; male and female created he them. 
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and 
replenish the earth, and subdue it : and have dominion over the fish of the 
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth 
upon the earth." 

Read next, Genesis 2 : 7, 8, 15, 18 — 22. Here man is repre- 
sented as formed first, as placed in the garden of Eden alone ; as 
living some time alone ; a time of indefinite length. God at length 
says, " It is not good for man to be alone :" and he makes the lower 
animals,* and brings them all to Adam, to see what he would call 
them, in hopes, as it would seem, that Adam may find a suitable and 
satisfactory companion in some of them. But for Adam there was 
found no helpmeet for him. It is now, after a lapse of time not 
measured, that God makes woman. 

It should be observed, that the account in the second chapter of 
Genesis, beginning at the fourth verse, differs in many other parti- 
culars from the account given in the first chapter. In the second 
account, no mention is made of six days : nothing is said of God 
lesting. God is spoken of under a different name ; a different ac- 
count is given of the origin of vegetables and plants, &c. ; all going 
to show that the accounts are by two different authors. 



38 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



EE MARKS* OF REV. DR. BERG. 

[As the gentleman rose from his seat, there was a burst of ap- 
plause ; when he reached the stand, there was a second one, more 
general, and enthusiastic. A few sounds of h'sh.] 

My opponent compels me, by his present mode of argument, to lay 
aside the more calm discussion, which I would greatly prefer, from 
prepared notes, and to resort to extemporaneous refutation. I much 
regret that the preliminary arrangements of this discussion have been 
forgotten by my opponent, and that he introduces subjects entirely 
foreign to the topic in hand. The consequence of this is, that the 
form of the discussion is not regular ; and that wherever he has 
wandered, I have been compelled to ask your indulgence in following 
him. I am glad that he did not repeat his charge against me, that 1 
did not answer his objections. I have answered them as fast as I 
could talk ; and he knows full well, that it requires far less time to 
make an objection, than to answer it. I find, too, that his frequently 
refuted arguments are again and again presented. Before I go 
further, I would respectfully remind my opponent that I have asked 
him several questions, which he has not yet answered. I would now 
repeat them, and again request an answer, whenever it may suit his 
convenience to give it, and not one moment before. I ask him- — 

1. What is the name of the Supreme Being he worships ? 

2. What are the attributes of that Supreme Being 1 

3. How are these attributes revealed to him ? How does he 
know these attributes belong to Him, when he does not know His 
name 1 He said that he had seen Infidels die without fear, because 
they believed in a God of love, free from malignity. This is true of 
Christians ; their God is one of infinite compassion and love, and 
they go to him with the confidence with which they would to a father. 
My opponent says that the heathen know the attributes of the Supreme 
Being from his works, and that Paul affirms that His eternal power 
and love are known from Nature. These do not, however, include 
all the attributes of Jehovah. Now, I would like to know how the 
others were revealed to them ; and I beg him to answer me, unless 
he is unable to tell. 

My opponent discards the idea, that theie is nothing besides laws 
for the government of the universe ; he admits that there is some- 
thing back of malaria, for the production of disease. This is cer- 
tainly an advance towards the Orthodox faith. (General applause and 
laughter.) I am glad he is coming over, and that this discussion is 
doing him some good. But his views are not yet Orthodox. He 
admits that there is something back of marshes ; that there are not 
only fixed laws, but a lawgiver, who superintends and controls their 
operation. If he says that God fixes the Jaws, and then leaves their 
operations to take care of themselves, he is in the bog of atheism. 
(Slight applause and cries of h'sh ) I find myself under the necessity 
of correcting a few personal mistakes, for which my opponent is, 
perhaps, not to blame in one respect, but in another. A report pub- 
lished in some of the papers makes him say, that we were born and 
educated in the same borough. 

Mr. Barker. — I did not say that. 

Dr. Berg. — What did you say ? 



REMARKS OF DR. BEROu 



39 



Mr. Barker. — I said that we were born under the same govern- 
ment, and that you were educated in the same parish in which I 
was born. 

Dr. Berg. — I will state the way in which Mr. Barker became pos- 
sessed of his information. In the preliminary arrangement for this 
discussion, Mr. Barker complained, that in a former debate, my friend 
Mr. McCalla, had used his foreign origin to excite prejudice against 
him. I then said that I had crossed the water, too. But though 
there is this in common between us, there are some striking differ- 
ences between us. I crossed when I was a child of 13 years of age ; 
I received my education in this country, and have been here twenty- 
eight years ; and though I love its institutions, my opponent is no 
worse in my estimation, though he is from a foreign land. I shall 
ever look with love towards the land where cluster my associations of 
school and childhood. But I would remark, that there is this differ- 
ence between us : — I did not come to preach disorder and sedition ; 
nor to upset the government and institutions of the country ; nor to 
insist upon topics which— (murmurs of disapprobation, hisses, cries of 
question, and go on, bravos, and some applause ; it was a minute or 
two before order was restored.) 

Allow me, my friends, to finish my sentence, and do not take up my 
time with applause. In alluding to this topic, I disclaim all inten- 
tion to excite any feeling of angry hostility against Mr. Barker. My 
only object was, to prevent the introduction into this debate of a topic 
wholly foreign to it, and which I have understood, from several 
sources, my opponent was resolved to force into it. I wished to 
forestal this, by stating the chief differences between us. I think 
that when a foreigner enjoys the benefit of our institutions, he should 
not interfere with them ; that modesty requires him to leave their 
reform to those who are better entitled to discuss them. My oppo- 
nent objects to the Scriptures, that the original MSS. are lost ; and 
that their are diversities in the copies. I would ask him, what work 
of antiquity is not open to precisely the same objections ? Is not the 
original of M.S. of Homer's Illiad lost ? Are their not diversities in 
the copies preserved % Would he reject it on that account, and say 
that there is no such book 1 and that the story of Homer is entitled 
to no credit 1 Virgil's iEneid is in precisely the same case. And 
would he refuse to receive the Commentaries of Caesar, because the 
original M.S. is lost, and there are different readings ? And let us 
come to modern times. 

If I present you Shakspeare's plays, do you think of this 1 How 
about the original manuscripts 1 Well, where are they ? Have they 
not been copied and recopied ? I do not pretend to deny, that in a 
work, the transcripts of which have been handed down from century 
to century, there are occasional interpolations. It is admitted that 
these exist in the Bible ; but my opponent can make nothing of this. 
The tendency of his argument is to prove that there is no Bible ; and 
it bears as severely on his side as on mine. We have the highest 
authority in Europe and the United States for saying that it is settled 
as law, that the best evidence is where substantial agreement is accom- 
panied with circumstantial variety. The variations in Shakspeare 
are the best proofs of the former existence of an original, and thus is 
my opponent's argument on this point scattered to the winds. 
(Slight applause, a few hisses, and cries of h'sh.) 



GO 



DISCUSSION OxN THE BIBLE. 



My opponent says that I called him some thirty or forty foul names. 
If I did, I am sorry for it. But I have no recollection of doing so. 
What I did, I may do again, for when this blessed book lays down a 
principle, I accept it as true. If it says that certain expressions are 
blasphemy, and a man uses them, he is a blasphemer, and I can't help 
it. If it says that persons who act in a certain way are children of 
the devil, and I call them by that name, I can't help it. All that I 
can say is, that if my opponent feels that the cap fits him, he can 
wear it. 

My opponent has cited the denunciation by Christ of the Pharisees 
as applicable to ministers and professors of the Gospel, and quotes 
Isaiah to prove that the Jews were more vile than the Gentiles. Can 
this be a charge upon the Bible 1 

Does the prophet not utter his denunciations against those who 
refuse the Gospel ? Does not Christ speak of the Scribes and Phari- 
sees as his enemies? To the enemies of the Bible, then, do these 
passages refer. (Slight applause.) To them belongs the appellatioxi 
of hypocrites ; to them^pertains the denunciation of Christ. Of them 
it is said, Ye serpents, how shall ye escape the damnation of hell ? 
(aeneral applause.) Again, he says that the Bible reflects on the 
character of God, by representing salvation as withheld from nine tenths 
of the human family. My answer is, that all the gifts of God are 
gifts of grace ; that men are by nature sinners, and have no claim 
whatever, upon the justice of God ; and that all his good acts towards 
his creatures are of undeserved favour. And let me tell him, that all 
the signs of the times indicate that the period spoken of in the Bible 
is approaching, when the light of the Gospel shall chase away all the 
clouds of error, when such a scene as this shall not b<) witnessed, and 
when a man shall not need to say to his neighbour, Know the Lord, 
for all shall know him, from the least to the greatest. God speed that 
glorious day, when Infidels shall cast their gods of darkness to the 
moles and to the bats ! 

My friend paid me a compliment last evening, which it gives me 
great happiness to reciprocate, It is said, that to quote from a man 
is the highest compliment possible. He brought to your notice a 
sentiment uttered in a lecture of mine, which had found its way to him. 
I have something here (the Doctor held up a book) which he may re- 
cognise: — 

" But there are other facts which deserve observation. Many of the best 
men wich whom I have had the happiness to be acquainted, have been great 
readers and great lovers of the Bible. Whether it was their attention to Bible 
teachings that made them good, or their goodness that led them to delight in 
Bible principles and influences, the result is equally in favour of the Bible. If 
the Bible made them gODcI, then the Bible must be good in its tendency ; and 
if it was their goodness that led them to delight in the Bible, there is an affinity 
between the Bible and goodness : they harmonize ; therefore the Bible must be 
good in its character. 

"I have further to observe, that I never knew a bad unprincipled man, a 
false and selfish man, a proud, a filthy and malignant man, that did delight in 
the Bible. I have known many profligate Infidels, and they were all haters of 
the Bible. I have known many profligate priests, and they were the same. 
Whether men be infidels or priests, if they are selfish, deceit/id, proud, or mas 
lignant, they are equally haters of the Bible. There is this difference : the pro- 
fligate Infidel generally lets his hatred of the Bible appear,while the profligate 
priest labours to conceal his hatred of the Bible, that he may live and grow 
rich by pretending to teach its principles. Bu*- even Infidels themselves pre- 
tend to love and revere the Bible, when it suits their interests ; and even priests 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



Gi 



allow their dread and their hatred of the Bible to appear at times. But 
whether they conceal or avow their hatred of the Bible, the profligate, the bad 
whether priests or Infidels, will still be found to be detpiscrs or haters of the 
Bible. 

" I have had considerable acquaintance, both with Infidels and priests, so 
that I have had good opportunities of learning the truth on this subject. I 
have especially had good opportunities of learning the truth with respect to 
piiests. And I feel bound to declare, first, that I have in general, found them 
either the most ignorant, or the most malignahnt of men. Some of them are ex- 
ceedingly ignorant ; they study nothing; they know nothing: they care for 
nothing, but just going through the drudgery required of them by their pay- 
mastsrs, and secure their living." 

My opponent has also undertaken to laud the French Revolution. 
Let us see what that Revolution was. I will read you a passage in 
reference to it, from Scott's Life of Napoleon : — 

[The Lfoctor here read from Scott, a passage descriptive of the horrors 
practised at Lyons, Nantes, and other cities of France, where large numbers 
of men were bound together, or shut up in the holds of ships, and sunk in the 
stream, and the sacrifice was called republican baptism ; and when a man and 
woman were tied together and thrown into a river, and the murder was called 
a republican marriage.] 

My opponent said that he loved the family institution, where there 
is one wife and one husband living together in love for the term of 
their natural life ; but is it not true, that when you deny the Divine au- 
thority of marriage, you strike a blow at the very foundation of that 
institution ? If it has no other basis than the human law, then has it 
no dependence or stability. Men devise law for themselves, and can 
change it to suit themselves ; what laws they make, they can unmake ; 
what they enact, they can annul ; and unless there is a sanction -higher 
and grealer than any human authority, there is no stability what- 
ever for this institution. But I will read you another passage from 
Scott. [The Doctor had commenced reading, when his time expired. 
As he took his seat there was long applause.] 

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER 

Scott was a Scotch Tory ; a reviler of the old Covenanters, who 
fought so nobly for their freedom, and a bigoted enemy of all reformers, 
whether political, civil, or religious. He was a miserable worshipper 
of rank and titles ; a hater of republican democracy, and his writings 
are in harmony with his antediluvian notions. His remarks on the 
French Revolution are in keeping with his Tory feelings and prejudices. 
They will not weigh a feather with those acquainted with his character 
and friendly to the cause of freedom. Even Alison, though a son of 
a Church of England clergyman, and himself very much of a Tor)-, 
supplies an answer to the random abuse of Scott. He observes, that 
the occasional excesses of the French revolutionists were no more than 
the natural results of the tyranny and oppression to which thev had 
been so long subjected. Their rulers had used them like brutes, and 
had rendered them brutal ; and when they broke their chains and 
found themselves free, they acted like brutes. The fault of their ex- 
cesses belonged to the tyrants who had goaded and tortured them to 
madness. Use men as men, says Alison, and they will be men and 
act like men. Use them as brutes, and you make them brutes ; and 
when left for awhile to themselves, they will act like brutes. Hence the 
historian wishes rulers to learn to treat men with justice and humanity 



05 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



while under restraint, that they may be fitted for freedom when the 
day of their enfranchisement arrives. Allow men freedom of thought 
and freedom of speech ; — favour free discussion ; — respect each other's 
right ; — despise no man ; — treat all with respect and candour? — and 
you will thus develope in all the higher and nobler faculties, increase 
in all the power of wise self-government, and prepare the way for full 
and universal freedom, without violence, convulsions and blood. 

But let me add, that the bloody deeds of the French revolutionists 
shrink into insignificance when compared with the cruelties and butche- 
ries of preceding governments, under the Bible-believing kings, and 
priests and aristocrats. Nor is this all. The revolutionists are not 
always to be made answerable for the excesses in which they took a 
part. They were not so much the actors, as the tools of others, who 
craftily and cruelly employed them for their own selfish purposes. 
The insurrections, the cruelties of the French, were often organized 
by the agents of other governments, employed and paid for the pur- 
pose, with a view to bring the Revolution and the reformers of France 
into disgrace, and so prepare the way for the restoration of priestly 
and monarchical tyranny. It must be remembered that the despots 
of Europe were banded together against the French reformers, and 
bent on crushing the cause of freedom. They not only employed 
their fleets and armies, in open warfare, but swarms of spies and secret 
incendiaries, whom they supplied with gold, and sent into every part 
of France, to devise mischief, to suggest the formation of plots, to 
spread false rumours, create panics, and, in the terror and confusion, 
prompt the poor creatures whom they had deluded to mad and 
bloody deeds. They succeeded too well. They undermined, by 
their infernal craft, the glorious cause which had triumphed over the 
united forces of Europe in open and honourable warfare. 

The same dishonourable arts were employed by the tyrants of 
Europe after the revolution of 1848. The despots did not send their 
armies into the field to force on the French their deposed and banished 
monarch, but they sent forth secret enemies, and distributed gold to 
encourage conspiracies, intrigues, and criminal excesses, and thus 
bring the cause of republican freedom into disrepute, and prepare the 
way for the re- establishment of despotism. No man who loves his 
fellow-man, and longs to see the nations of the earth free and happy, 
should apologize for the priesthoods and despotism of Europe, or 
blindly take up and circulate the slanders they have fabricated against 
the oppressed and plundered masses. Scott joined himself to the 
tyrants, who were banded against the liberties of Europe and the 
rights of humanity, and my opponent has joined himself to Scott. 
(Applause.) 

The Doctor says I forget or overlook the rules of the debate. I 
do neither. T both bear in mind, and keep to them with the greatest 
care. The subject of debate is the origin and authority of the- Bible. 
I have undertaken to prove that the Bible is of human origin, and, 
consequently, of no authority. I have been proving this by internal 
evidence ; by the style and contents of the book. I have shown — 
I am still showing — that the contents of the book, whether theolo- 
gical, moral, historical or philosophical, are such as to show, that its 
origin must have been human. If I have ever turned aside from 
the question, it has been to follow my opponent. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



63 



My opponent wishes me, when it shall be convenient to myself, to 
tell him the name of the God I worship — what are his attributes, 
and how those attributes were revealed to me. I will comply with 
his request. I will tell him all I think about God, and discuss with 
him my thoughts, if he wishes it. The proper time will be, when 
we have closed the present discussion. (Applause, cries of good, 
hisses, shouts, derision.) Eight nights will be few enough for the 
discussion of the Bible — too few, unless my opponent makes more 
way; it would be foolish, therefore, to take in hand another discus- 
sion at present. (Immense explosion of shouts, bravos, hisses, sounds 
of hush. Mr. Barker took his seat, not being able to make himself 
longer heard. Mr. Chambers and Dr. Berg requested the meeting 
to keep order, that the discussion might proceed.) 

My opponent asks me how 1 learn the attributes of God. I ans- 
wer, if the Bible be true, the character of God is revealed by his 
works. In the passage in Romans 1:19, 23, already quoted, it is 
stated, that " that which may be known of God," which plainly 
means all that is knowable of God, "is manifest to the heathen, for God 
hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him, (his un- 
seen powers or perfections, without any exception, for no exceptions 
are made,) from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being 
understood by the things which are made, even his eternal power and 
Godhead." Hence it is added, that the Gentiles were without excuse; 
which could not have been the case, unless the Gentiles had had the 
means of knowing God adequately. Beside, the word Godhead, 
which is the English word corresponding to the Latin word Deity, 
means " God" generally — all that is included in the word God. The 
meaning of the passage plainly is, that all that can be known of God, 
in any way whatever, can be learned of Nature — that God is clearly 
and fully revealed — as clearly and fully revealed as is necessary or 
possible, by Nature — that the Gentiles, therefore, who have no Bibles, 
no supernatural teachers, are without excuse, if they do not love God, 
thank him, serve him, and live good lives. The same doctrine is 
taught in the Psalms, as well as in other portions of the Bible. 
And if God is not revealed by his works, we know not how he can 
be revealed. 

As my opponent has repeatedly introduced the subject, I hope I 
may be allowed a few words with regard to my views and feelings, 
my aims and my behaviour, in relation to the institutions of this coun- 
try. My opponent says there is this difference between him and me, 
that he came to the country much earliier than I, and that I came to 
sow sedition in the country, and to overthrow the institutions, the 
benefits of which I am enjoying. T beg to say, that,, since my arrival 
in this country, I have never uttered a word against any of its institu- 
tions, unless slavery be one of our national institutions, which is not 
allowed, I believe, by Americans generally. Slavery is generally 
spoken of as a State or local institution. In all cases, I have spoken 
of the institutions of the country in the highest terms ; I have spoken 
of them only what I thought and felt. The republican and demo- 
cratic principles on which the government is based, as set forth in the 
Declaration of Independence, and in the preamble to the Constitution, 
and the forms and institutions of the country, so far as they harmo- 
nize with those principles. I admire and reverence. I have said a 



04 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



thousand times, that I consider the United States of America ahead 
of every other country on the face of the earth. I say so again. In 
the only public meeting that I have attended in this city, an anti- 
slavery meeting, I expressed these views. I enumerated several 
particulars in which I considered this country had left the rest of the 
nations behind — in which this country had set the nations of the 
earth an example which it would be well for them to follow. 1 have 
even incurred the censure of some of my friends, for the length to 
which I have gone in the praise of this country. I have done no 
more since I came to this country, than I did when I lived in Eng- 
land, as my writings show. As I have said, I have spoken against 
no institution ; I have shown no hatred or horror of any institution; 
I have shown no wish to abolish any institution existing in the coun- 
try, w r ith the exception of slavery. And I have shown no wish to 
introduce even that subject into the present discussion, except so far 
as it is mixed up with the question with regard to the divine inspira- 
tion of the Bible. I have undertaken to prove that the Bible sanc- 
tions the vrorst forms of immorality and crime. T know no grosser 
immorality, I know no greater crime, than slaveholding. Slave- 
holding is every crime, and every form of immorality, in one. Yet 
slaveholding, I undertake to prove, is sanctioned by the Bible. This, 
I am bound to do. So far as such remarks may tend to undermine 
slavery in the Southern States of this country, I may be said to be 
undermining an institution that has a place in the country. But this 
is not seeking to destroy the institutions, the benefits of which I am 
enjoying. Does the Doctor mean to say that I am enjoying the 
benefits of Slavery 1 

Dr. Berg. — Pdjd not say that. 

Mr. Barker. — But Slavery is the only institution I have shown 
any wish to destroy. This, I should like to see destroyed. I have 
chosen America as my home, and as the home of my children. We 
wish to be able to boast of our country, not in some or in many 
respects only, but in all respects. We wish the broad principles of 
freedom and right, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, 
to pervade every department of government, to modify every law, 
to animate every bosom through every part of the Union. We wish 
the country of our choice, which excels all other countries in so many 
things, to excel in all. The sun has his spots, they say, which 
abate, to some extent, his splendour, and those we must bear with, 
for we cannot remove them ; but we wish the stars of this great re- 
public to have no spots to dim their brightness, or to abate the 
splendour of their beams. We wish the beauty and glory of our ex- 
ample to be perfect, that it may win the admiration of every land, 
and provoke to emulation every nation and government on earth. 

In England I spoke and wrote so plainly and strongly against the 
monarchy, aristocracy, and state priesthood of the country, and in 
favour of republicanism and democracy, as to earn for myself a gov- 
ernment prosecution, and a place, for a time, in an English dungeon. 
(Applause and cries of question.) I have no desire to dwell on these 
matters ; but when attempts are made, in a debate like this, to excite 
the feelings of the audience against me, by erroneous representations 
of my views and feelings, it is my duty, when the opportunity is 
afforded, to put the matter in i s true light. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



65 



The Doctor asks if T would reject Homer's Iliad, because there 
happened to be a number of various readings in the manuscripts of 
the work, and because the original copy was lost 1 I answer, No. 
I would not reject it ; nor would I reject the Bible on any such ac- 
count. But, if some idolator of the old Grecian bard should tell me, 
This work of Horner's is divinely inspired ; it is perfect ; there is 
neither error nor mistake in it," I should reject his notion. The 
book I would accept as an imperfect relic of ancient Grecian litera- 
ture, and make the best of it ; but the doctrine of its absolute perfec- 
tion and divine authority, I would reject. So with the Bible. It is 
represented to me as a perfect book— as the word of God — as of 
divine authority. I reply, there is not a copy of the work in exis- 
tence, which is not acknowledged to be imperfect. The versions, the 
Greek and Hebrew texts, and the manuscripts, differ from each other 
in hundreds of thousands, if not in millions of places. The originals 
are lost, so that we have no means of correcting the books, or of 
learning which of ihem comes nearest to the originals. Not one of 
them, therefore, is of any authority. Besides, the best of your versions 
abounds in contradictions, immoralities, and blasphemies. Your 
doctrine, therefore, of the divine authority of the book, is a delusion. 
It is thus we reason, and we see not how our argument can be 
answered. 

The Doctor asks how I can Ml, whether the passages on which I 
ground my objections to the divine authority of the Bible are not in- 
terpolations. I answer, I cannot tell. Some of them probably are ; 
others probably are not. But if they are interpolations, the book is 
partly human, and the doctrine of my opponent falls to the 
ground. If they are not interpolations, the book encourages the 
grossest immoralites and utters the grossest blasphemies, and can 
never have been more than the work of erring man. 

The Doctor talks of substantial agreement and circumstantial varia- 
tions, and tells us, that when these meet in a book, they form the 
best proof that the book is true. But the book before us contains 
substantial variations, and, in some cases, no agreement at all. It 
contains flat contradictions ; — contradictions in doctrine, contradic- 
tions in morals, contradictions in history. It countenances, besides, 
the grossest immoralities, and throws the most blasphemous reflec- 
tions on God. (Hisses.) 

The Doctor calls me a blasphemer. He is at liberty to call me so, 
if he please ; but I am liberty to deny and refute the charge, I suppose. 
We repeat, then, that blasphemy is speaking evil of God. This we 
have never none. We are not blasphemers, then. It is the Bible 
that speaks evil of God. It is the Bible, then, that blasphemes'. The 
Bible represents God as partial, cruel, unjust, revengeful. It repre- 
sents him as encouraging the grossest licentiousness, the most atrocious 
butcheries, the most revolting cruelties. Not only, therefore, are some 
of the authors of the Bible chargeable with blasphemy, but those also 
who represent the Bible as God's book. To charge God with 
writing such horrible blasphemies respecting himself, is one of the 
greatest blasphemies that can be uttered. W e defend the character 
of God against such blasphemous representations. We deny that 
he encouraged or commanded the horrid deeds which the Bible charges 
on, him. We deny that he wrote the Bible. We^eny that he is 



66 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



answerable for its blasphemies and immoralities. (Applause and 
hisses.) 

The Doctor charges me with saying that the Bible made the Jews 
corrupt. I did not say so. T simply said, that the Jews were cor- 
rupt, though they had the Bible. The Doctor had said, " See how 
dark and depraved the people are who have not the Bible." The 
Doctor argued, that the Bible made men wiser and better. I showed, 
b )th from observation and history, and from the Bible itself, that it 
did not — that the grossest licentiousness and the thickest darkness 
often accompanied the Bible. 

The Doctor says, that all God's gifts are gifts of grace— of unde- 
served favour. He thinks God has a right to be partial. The 
Doctor is welcome to his opinion. But the question is, Is it just to 
punish the innocent, and to allow the guilty to escape 1 Could it be 
just in God to kill seventy thousand innocent men, women and chil- 
dren, for the sin of one man, and that one man moved to commit the 
sin by God 1 Could it be just or kind in God, to allow a whole 
race of men to become morally corrupt, and liable to eternal torments 
in hell, which is the Doctor's interpretation of the Bible doctrine, for 
one man's sin ? We think such things are excesses of injustice and 
cruelty. We see no grace about them. 

My opponent thinks the day is coming, when Christianity shall 
cover the whole earth. We think otherwise. Dr. Campbell, of 
England, anthor of a work on lay agency, and Stephen Colwell, of 
your own city, author of New Themes, say, that Christianity does 
not keep pace with the increase of population. Mr. Colwell thinks 
Christianity never did conquer a very large portion of the earth, and 
some of her conquests she has lost. The general complaint among 
Christians is, that Infidelity is gaining ground. Time will show 
which cause is triumphing. All we have to say on the point is, 
" Give both sides liberty. Let both declare their views, plainly and 
freely, and let the mightiest triumph ; and I shall be content." 

In a former speech, I said that I had seen Christians die full of 
horror, and that I had found among those called unbelievers some cf 
the best and happiest of mankind. Let me not, however, be under- 
stood as contending that there are no good Christians, or that Chris- 
tians never die happy. I have known among believers in the Bible, 
some of the best and kindest people with whom I have had the hap- 
piness to meet. That they were kind and good in consequence of 
their belief in the Bible, I do not believe. Some of them would 
probably have been better, and they would certainly have been 
kinder and more agreeable, if they had not believed the whole Bible. 
But that Christians are sometimes good, and that some of them die 
happy, we have no doubt. 

As to the quotation which my opponent made from one of my 
early writings, I wish to say : At the time I wrote that passage, I 
had very erroneous and unworthy ideas of unbelievers. 1 was inca- 
pable of doing unbelievers justice. I regarded them as secret enemies 
of truth and virtue ; of God and man, I had been taught from my 
childhood, that none could doubt or disbelieve the Divine authority 
of the Bible, but men of bad, depraved hearts ; that the only cause of 
unbelief was inward depravity. I was taught that every unbeliever 
must of necessity be a bad, immoral man ; that if he was not an open 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



07 



and avowed profligate, it was because he did not find it convenient to 
be so ; that he always was a profligate, whether he appeared so or 
not. This doctrine was inculcated on me not only by my parents and 
Sunday School teachers, but by every preacher I heard, and by .every 
book I read. I believed it, as a matter of course. I had not informa- 
tion enough to awaken within me a doubt of its truth. This dark 
and deadly error kept hold of me and blinded me for several years 
after I had come to years of manhood. When I could not but see 
the appearance of virtue and philanthropy, about an unbeliever I re- 
garded it as a cloak to cover his depravity. The more virtuous and 
exemplary an unbeliever appeared, the more depraved I believed him 
to be inwardly ; the more beautiful and perfect his character ap- 
peared, the more consummate I deemed his hypocrisy. I spoke of 
them and wrote of them accordingly. I could do no other. But pre- 
judice at last gave way. The deceitfulness and dishonesty of leading 
believers, and distinguished writers in defence of the Bible and 
Orthodox forms of theology, destroyed my faith in them. My 
opinions were, consequently modified. New discoveries of priestly 
fraud, forced upon me by reading, observation and experience, modi- 
fied my opinions still more. I "saw, at length, how my youthful mind 
had been abused. I inquired into the grounds of my early faith, and 
found that it rested on a false foundation. I renounced my errors 
as fast as I detected them. I retracted the calumnies I had uttered 
or printed against those who had differed from me. T retracted the 
words which were read by my opponent. I wrote them in ignorance. 
They are false. The revelations of time, the lessons of experience, 
the voice of my consciousness, the oracles of the eternal God, uttered 
and echoed from every part of his great universe, no longer permit 
me to doubt, but that among the despised, and hated, and persecuted 
Infidels, as they are falsely called, are to be found the purest and 
best, the bravest and the noblest of men, the devoutest worshippers 
of truth, the truest friends of humanity, the most enlightened philo- 
sophers, and the most devoted philanthropists, that the world can 
boast. (Applause.) 

The Doctor says I deny the Divine authority of the family insti- 
tution, and that my principles tend to undermine its purity. This is 
not true. I said the true and natural form of the family institution 
was of Divine origin, as much as anything in the universe, and that 
it had the Divine authority of our nature in its favour. I stated, too, 
what this true form of the family institution was, and showed how 
it differed from the various unnatural and vicious forms of the family 
institution presented in the Bible. The forms of the family institu- 
tion which we oppose are those which consist, 1. Of one husband 
and several wives. 2. One husband, several wives, and a number of 
mistresses. 3. One husband and one wife, the wife a blood relation, 
as in the case of Abraham and Sarah, and their slaves. 4. One hus- 
band and one wife, the wife a slave and the husband her lord and 
master. 5. One husband and one wife united without mutual affec- 
tion, the wife subject, and the husband lord. These Bible forms of 
the family institution are what we denounce as unnatural, wicked 
and mischievous. 

I would now notice several errors of the Bible, of a different kind. 
And, first, as we have before observed, the Bible gives different, and, 



68 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



in some particulars, contradictory accounts of the creation. It also 
gives different and contradictory accounts of the flood, of Abraham, &c, ; 
accounts so exceedingly different, both in style and matter, as to prove 
that the book of Genesis is a compilation, or a jumbling together, of 
parts of two different and discordant documents. 

We have a number of falsehoods in the account of the first trans- 
gression, and the curses pronounced on the offenders. My opponent 
thinks that the account of the curse pronounced on the serpent receives 
colateral proof from the universal horror with which the serpent is 
regarded. But we have yet to learn that a peculiar horror of the 
serpent is universal. We know it is not. Children rightly brought 
up have no such horror of serpents, much less have they any pecu- 
liar enmity against them. But, supposing the Bible account to be true, 
could it be just in God to subject every serpent on earth, through 
every age, to the peculiar hatred or enmity of mankind, for the sin of 
one individual serpent % 

But a peculiar enmity of men against serpents, is not the whole of 
the curse pronounced by God, according to the Bible, upon that race 
of animals. We will read the passage. " And the Lord God said 
unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above 
all cattle, and above every beast of the field ; upon thy belly shalt 
thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will 
put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and 
her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." 
Genesis 3 : 14, 15. 

The curses here pronounced upon the serpent are manifold, but not 
one of them can be proved to have been really inflicted. Where is 
the proof that the serpent is cursed above all cattle 1 True, it goes on 
its belly, but it is not the only living thing that does so. And where 
is the proof that its going on its belly is a curse 1 Where is the 
proof that its peculiar kind of locomotion is not an advantage 1 Its 
motions are quick and graceful, and its power to move so near to the 
ground, and under cover of the grass, is a great advantage, — is a means 
of great security. The passage adds, " Dust shalt thou eat all the 
days of thy life." Does the serpent eat dust ? Does it eat more 
dust than other animals ? Does it eat as much ? Where is the proof ? 
There is none. There is proof to the contrary. Serpents live on 
insects, birds, and other living things. But they eat dust along 
with their meat. Do they do so more than other animals ? Not so 
much. 

And where is the proof that serpents have any peculiar enmity to 
man 1 Where is the proof that they have any peculiar anxiety to 
bruise or wound man's heel ? There is none. There is proof to the 
contrary. The serpent is glad to keep out of man's way. It never 
show^ any peculiar desire to injure man. 

Take next the curse pronounced on woman. " Unto the woman 
he said, T will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception ; in 
sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy 
husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16- Is the sorrow 
of woman much greater than that of all other females 1 Is the 
sorrow or the pain referred to, a curse 1 Is it not necessary to the 
mother's safety, as well as to the safety of her offspring ? Is woman 
in ail cases subject to her husband? Is man in all cases lord? 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



69 



Among the savage and brutal, it is thus, and among the slaves to old 
traditions it is generally thus. But among the enlightened, the cul- 
tivated, and the refined, it is not thus. But suppose women were 
universally in subjection, would it be right to charge their degradation 
on God> and to represent God as inflicting it unjustly, on account of 
a sin that none of them could possibly help,' — a sin committed before 
any of them were born 1 The thing is monstrous. 
The sentence on Adam is as follows : — • 

" And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of 
thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou 
shalt not eat of it : cursed is the ground for thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat 
of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to 
thee : and thou shalt eat the herb of the field : in the sweat of thy face shalt 
thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground ; for out of it wast thou taken : 
for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." 

We ask, 1. Is the ground cursed ? Does it bear any marks of 
having fallen from a better or more perfect state, to a lower or a worse ? 
Just the contrary. The history of the earth, as revealed by geology, 
tells us that the earth has ever been improving. It is improving still. 

2. Do men eat of the ground with sorrow all the days of their life] 
Do not many eat the produce of the earth, the fruits of their labour, in 
cheerfulness and joy ? The men that eat of the fruits of the earth 
with sorrow all their days are very few. They would be fewer still, 
there would be none at all, if it were not for the gloomy and horrible 
doctrines of superstition. The enlightened and virtuous enjoy all 
things. Their life is^ often a perpetual feast. There is nothing to 
hinder all from enjoying life, but the prevalence of a false theology 
and a false morality. 

3. The earth bears thorns and thistles, but where is the proof that 
they are a curse ] There is none. There is proof that they are 
blessings. But, curses or blessings, where is the proof that the earth 
never bore them before the sin of Adam 1 Nowhere. There is 
proof that the earth bore thorns and thistles long before man came 
into being on earth. 

4. Do all eat bread with the sweat of their brow ? No. Ts it a 
curse to labour till we sweat, for our bread 1 It is not. It is a bless- 
ing. Labour generally is a blessing in moderation. And there is no 
necessity for immoderate labour, arising from anything amiss in the 
earth. There is no such curse on the ground, as to make it necessary 
for men to labour more than two or three hours a day, if things were 
rightly managed. 

5. What proof can our theologians give that death is a curse ? 
What proof can they give that death originated in the first man's sin? 
What proof can be given that a good or just God could inflict death 
as a punishment on every human being for the sin of one, — a sin -com- 
mitted before any of them were born 1 None. Both the philosophy 
and the theology are bad. They are both false and blasphemous. 
They are childish and foolish in the extreme. It is sorrowful to 
think that they should so long have held men's minds in bondage. 

The story of the deluge next invites our attention. This story tells 
us, that the wickedness of man was so great, that God repented that lie 
had made man, and resolved to destroy the whole race, both old and 
young, the men of grey hairs, and the new-born babes of yesterday, 



70 



DISCUSSION - ON THE BIBLE. 



with all the birds and beasts and creeping things, except one small 
family of men, and pairs and seven pairs of other living things, God 
fixes on a flood as the means of destruction. The family of Noah, 
which he determined to preserve, and the pairs or seven pairs of 
inferior things, he proposes to save in an ark. The ark is to be 
150 yards long, 25 wide, and 15 high. It is to be divided into three 
stories. It is to have one door and one window. The window is to 
be a cubit, or half a yard square. Both window and door are to be 
kept closed. In this ark, Noah was to accommodate, first, himself 
and his family, with provisions for from one to two years ; second, 
seven pairs of all kinds of birds, seven pairs of all clean beasts, and 
pairs of all unclean beasts and of all creeping things, with food for all 
to serve them more than a year. Noah is to collect all these animals 
and take them into the ark. He is next to gather food for them all, 
and store that in the ark. This would require him to visit all 
countries, and gather the animals and the supplies of food for them 
from all. He and his family besides attending to themselves and one 
another, would have to feed and water all these creatures, and clean 
after them, and keep all orderly and sweet. The number of animals 
would be above a million and a half, according to the estimates of 
modern naturalists. How Noah and his family could attend to them 
all, in their dark abodes, and obtain a supply of fresh air through one 
small window in the roof, and that kept shut, and how he would be 
able to keep all clean and sweet, judge ye. The story can be regarded 
as no other than an enormous fable. [Time uj?, Mr. Barker took 
his seat, the audience maintaining silence.] 

REMARKS OF REV. PR. BERG. 

Tf I did injustice to my opponent in mentioning the difference 
between us, I am sorry for it. I am glad to find he loves the insti- 
tutions of this country. I am glad to find that he has no intention to 
introduce the obnoxious topic to which I alluded. I wished to fore- 
stall such an intention, as I had heard of it from various quarters. 

My opponent said, that the strong language used by him in his 
little book, was the result of his prejudice against the Infidels. 

Mr. Barker. — I stated that I had received a strictly religious 
training from my parents, and therefore, I could not regard Infidels 
impartially. I did not know facts enough to justify these conclusions. 

Dr. Berg. — I am willing to take the word of my opponent — either 
now or then, if he will tell me which to take. His statements con- 
flict. In his book he speaks of having a considerable acquaintance 
with Infidels. If he speaks the truth now he was in error then. If 
he spoke it then, he is much in error now. (Loud laughter and ap- 
plause.) 

My opponent declines telling me the name of his God, and fur- 
nishing answers to other questions, until the eight evenings for which 
I am engaged to him for this discussion shall have expired. If he 
will not tell us in advance, we will probably not hear it at all. It is 
not likely that, after this debate, I will wish to trouble an audience 
with a controversy with Mr. Barker, for, from present indications, 
there will be very little left of him by that time. (Vociferous applause.) 
There is one subject I wish to introduce, which may be grateful to 



REMARKS OF I) 11. BEKC. 



71 



this audience, because it will give diversity to the train of thought 
now uppermost. Mr. Barker said he had seen Infidels die calmly 
and composedly, because eternity for them had no fears ; and that he 
had seen Christians die full of horror, because they had been taught 
to regard God as malignant. No such thing. The Christian's 
God is a God of love, a reconciled Father, ready to forgive his 
children, and afford them an abundant entrance into glory. Only 
out of Christ is he a consuming fire. But he is allmercy to those 
who rejoice in the Mediator. 

I will now show you, out of my opponent's mouth, how dark Infi- 
delity is. He has told us that there is no remission of sin ; that no 
man who has sinned can expect to be forgiven ; that there is no 
escape in this world or the next. For Infidels, there is no Saviour, 
but they must live, always looking forward to fearful retribution. He 
has seen Infidels die happy, His experience is altogether different 
from that of all others. 1 never saw one of these bold blasphemers 
die, and I hope I never may. The records of such scenes are so full 
of horror, that they overwhelm with dread. I will give you one or 
two instances, to which I ask your solemn attention. 

I have seen many Christians die, but I never saw one die in hor- 
ror. They all testified to the consolations of the Bible. There are 
some men in our city, who extol Thomas Paine. They want a new 
revelation, and Thomas Paine gave his followers a Bible. They cher- 
ish it now. But hear the manner of his death. I quote from an 
eye-witness : — 

HIS CLOSING SCENE. 

u I was called upon by accident to visit Mr. Paine, on the 25th of February 
last, and found him indisposed with fever, and very apprehensive of an attack 
of apoplexy, as he stated that he had had that disease before, and at this time 
felt a great degree of vertigo, and was unable to help himself, as he had 
hitherto done, on account of an intense pain above the eyes. 

" Concerning his conduct during his disease, I have not much to remark : 
though the little I have may be somewhat interesting. 

" Mr. Paine professed to be above the fear of death, and a great portion of 
his conversation was principally directed to give the impression, that he was 
perfectly willing to leave this world : and yet, some parts of his conduct are 
•with difficulty reconcileable with this belief. In the first stage of his illness, 
he was satisfied to be left during the day, but he required some person to be 
with him at night, urging as his reason, that he was afraid that he should die, 
when unattended : and at this period, his deportment and his principle seem- 
ed to be consistent : so much so, that a stranger would judge, from some of 
the remarks that he made, that he was an Infidel. I recollect being with him 
at night, watching : he was very apprehensive of a speedy dissolution, and 
suffered great distress of body, and perhaps of mind, (for he was waiting the 
event of an application to the Society of Friends, for permission that his corpse 
might be deposited in their grave-ground, and had reason to believe that the 
request might be refused,) when he remarked in these words, 'I think I can 
say what they made Jesus to say — My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
me 1 ' He went on to observe on the want of that respect which he conceived 
he merited. I remarked to him, that I thought that his corpse should be a 
matter of least concern to him ; that those whom he left behind him would see 
that he was properly interred ; and, further, that it would be of little conse- 
quence to mc where I was deposited, provided that I was buried : upon which 
he answered, that he had nothing else to talk about, and that he would as 
lieve talk of his death as any thing, but that he was not so indifferent about 
his corpse as I appeared to be. During the latter part of his life, though his 
conversation was equivocal, his conduct was more so : he would not be left 
alone night or day ; he not only required to have some person with him, but 
lie must see that he or she was there, and would not allow his curtain. to be 



72 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



closed at any time : and ?/asit would sometimes unavoidably happen, he was 
left alone, he would scream and hallo until some person came to him ; when 
relief from pain would admit, he seemed thoughtful and contemplative, his 
eyes being generally closed, and his hands folded upon his breast, although 
he never slept without the influence of anodyne. 

" There was something remarkable in his conduct about this period, (vrhieh 
comprises the fortnight immediately proceeding his death,) particularly when 
we reflect that Thomas Paine was author of the 6 Age of Season. ' He would 
call out, during his paroxysms of distress, without intermission, e Lord, help 
me ! God, help me ! Jesus Christ, help me ! Lord, help me ! ' repeating 
the same expressions without any, the least, variation, in a tone of voice that 
would alarm the house. These exclamations induced me to think that he had 
abandoned his former opinions ; and I was more inclined to this opinion, when 
I understood from his nurse, (who was a very serious, and I believe pious 
woman,) that he would occasionally inquire, when he saw her engaged with a 
book, what she was reading, and being answered, and at the same time asked 
whether she should read aloud, he assented, and would appear to give particu- 
lar attention. 

" I took occasion, during the nights of the 5th and 6th of June, to test the 
strength of his opinions respecting revelation. 1 purposely made him a late 
visit : it was a time which seemed to suit my errand ; it was midnight ; he 
was in great distress, constantly exclaiming in the words above mentioned ; 
when, after considerable preface, I addressed him in the following manner, 
the nurse being present : — 

•* Mr. Paine, your opinions, by a large portion of the community, have been 
treated with deference ; yOu have never been in the habit of mixing in your 
conversation, words of coarse meaning ; you have never indulged in the prac- 
tice of profane swearing ; you mu3t be sensible that we are acquainted with 
your religious opinions, as they are given to the world ; what must we think of 
your present conduct 1 Why do you call upon Jesns Christ to help you 1 Do 
you believe that he can help you? Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus 
Christ 1 Come, now, answer me honestly ; I want an answer as from the lips 
of a dying man, for I verily believe that you will not live twenty-four hours.' 
I paused some time at the end of every question : he did not answer, but ceased 
to exclaim in the above manner. Again I addressed him : ' Mr. Paine, you 
have not answered my questions —will you not answer them % Allow me to 
ask again, do you believe — or, let me qualify the question — do you wish to 
believe, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ? ' After a pause of some minutes, 
he answered : ' / have no wish to believe en that subject.'' I then left him, 
and know not whether he afterwards spoke to any person on any subject, 
though he lived, as I before observed, a few hours longer : in fact, till the 
morning of the 8th. 

" Exclusive of Mr. Hicks, the Eev. Mr. Milledollar, the Rev. Mr. Cunning- 
ham, and one or two other gentlemen, who visited him from hnmane and 
Christian motives, he was abandoned on his death-bed, except by a few ob- 
scure and illiterate men, his former bottle companions, who attended him 
merely, it would seem, to urge him to persevere to the end in his deistical 
opinions. What his admissions would have been during those ' compunctious 
visitings of nature, ' but for the ' whips and spurs ' of those persons, we cannot 
even conjecture.'' 

In another part of this volume, I find recorded the death of Fran- 
cis Newport. 

[The Doctor here read the account. We have been unable to 
obtain it. The most striking passage in it, was the exclamation of 
Newport on his death-bed : ([ Oh ! that God would cease to 
be ! " "I wish there was a possibility of getting over God ! " " I 
endure more than damned spirits."] 

Now, here are passages which accord with the facts of universal 
experience. Infidels are hardened when in prosperity, but when they 
are near death, the latent fire of conscience is aroused, and in spite of 
their pride, they call on Christ for mercy. 

My opponent says that the family institution, which he loves, is of 



REMARKS OF DR BERG.. 



73 



Divine authority. I respectfully ask him how God has revealed it to 
him. He begins now to see that some other foundation than human 
authority is necessary. Now, if the God of the Bible has established 
the family institution, the authority is there. We find that Adam and 
Noah had but one wife : that the moral government of God is 
throughout consistent, and that God never yet revealed that polygamy 
was right. It is inconsistent with every moral statute. I will add, 
that God sometimes permits men to be convinced of the evil of certain 
institutions, for the purpose of moral discipline. My opponent insists 
that it is my duty to answer what he says of the case of 2 Samuel, 21. 
The Gibeonites said to David that they would have neither silver nor 
gold, neither fur them should any man in Israel be killed. 

[Here the Doctor read the passage, for which see previous report] 
But they demanded that seven men of the sons of Saul should be 
delivered unto them. This was done, and they were hanged. The 
reason of this punishment was, that the children of Israel had sworn to 
protect the G.beonites, who, notwiihstanding this oath, were slain by 
Saul. 

This only shows that God punishes murder. When murder has 
been committed, God holds the land responsible for the innocent blood 
shed. 

It appears that Saul had not only violated the pledge of the princes 
of Israel, but had massacred a defenceless tribe. 

The blood of the Gibeonites cried to heaven for vengeance. The 
punishment was retribution, not cruelty ? and if there is one word 
Infidels would blot out of the Bible, it is retribution. But the chil- 
dren were hanged for his sin ; and my opponent asks me, Will God 
punish children for the offences of their parent ? Yes, for he has 
said so ; and mortal man cannot define all his ways. He is sovereign, 
holy, and can do with us as he sees fit. On the same principle, we 
fiiid, that, if a man will degrade himself by drunkenness, his children 
will pay the penalty ; if he has diseased his body by licentiousness, 
his offspring will pay the penalty. These are enigmas we eannot 
solve, but the facts are analagous. We cannot make every thing in 
this world square with our ideas, and imagine that we know all that is 
in the world. 

And here let me bring to your attention a beautiful illustration of 
Infidel pity. Tt is in the shape of an anonymous letter. The friends 
of Mr. Barker, not content with the atrocities they find in the Bible, 
find some in modern times to excite their compassion. I do not like 
anonymous letters, but I have no other than good feeling towards its 
author. It would have been, perhaps, more manly, to put his name 
to his production*; but I will do it the honour to read it : — 

" Tuesday. 

" Eev. Sir — Returning home from the discussion last evening, and re- 
flecting upon the dreadful exhibition of the acts of the children of Israel, as 
ordered or sanctioned by the Almighty, my mind was turned to a modern 
instance, which might furnish a parallel to some of those atrocities. Allow me 
the liberty of stating the facts. 

" A few months ago only, three or four men went into the humble lodgings 
of a poor man, depressed to the earth with anxious days and sleepless nights, 
and, in spite of his piteous remonstrances, tied his hands behind his back, led 
him into the back yard, and, passing a rope round his neck, deliberately 
stuangkd him to death. Strange to add, there were sqfae hundreds of spec 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



tators present, not one of whom ventured to interfere ; and to crown all, a 
minister of the gospel stood up and made a prayer. 

" The unfortunate victim of violence left a widow and an orphan boy to 
bewail their loss. The ringleader in this atrocious deed was Sheriff Allen, 
(movement in the audience,) who pretended that he acted by warrant of the 
Governor. The name of the murdered man was Arthur Spring." (Explosion 
of laughter, shouts, and applause. 

Here is a pretty sample of manufactured Infidel pity ! " The mur- 
dered man was Arthur Spring." Poor Spring ! innocent creature that 
he was !. his hands bound behind him, the rope round his neck, is the 
object of sympathetic regard. I pity him, too ; but will you blot out 
retribution 1 Should pity be exhausted on the infamous murderer, 
and not a single emotion be given to the poor women whom his ruth- 
less hand had sent to their long account, whose throats he had, at the 
solemn hour of midnight, cut from ear to ear ? Away with such pity, 
pleading impunity for crime ! We owe no pity to those whose lives 
are forfeited to the violated laws of God and man. But my opponent 
tells us that he needs no divine revelation, because man has a law 
within himself — has an inner light to guide him. But suppose this 
light turns out to be darkness, what then ? (Loud applause and 
laughter.) Suppose they put that light out : there is no rngre light in 
the world, no law, no love, no transgressions. A man may destroy 
his conscience, and what then 1 The pirate has his light, too, within 
himself. His conscience is, that there is no harm in murdering to get 
money. If my opponent can get along with a light so flickering, I 
wish him well of it. 

My opponent has much to say of the revelations of Nature. But 
if these will account for the introduction of death into the world, I will 
thank him to show it. The Bible is the only revelation that teaches 
any thing about this, and many similar subjects, which witrTbut it, are 
enigmas. 

My opponent brings up again to night a number of objections which 
1 thought I had answered. If he continues this course, it is evident 
there can be no end to the discussion. 1 do not like what he savs, 
nor he what I say, and the better way, after stating what we think, is 
to leave the decision to the intelligence of the audience. He speaks 
again of God's having rested, and says, that to speak of God as if he 
had a body, conveys a false impression. Has he not read the beautiful 
words of Isaiah ? " Hast thou not known, hast thou not heard, that 
the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth 
fainteth not, neither is weary ?" Isaiah 40: 28. (General applause) 
Does not my opponent himself stand here a living witness that the 
passages on which he comments are not to be understood literally ? 

He spoke again of Ahab and the lying spirits. I have shown you— 
[Here the time expired. Long and general applause.] 



#' 

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



*5 



FOURTH EVENING. 

At six o'clock, an immense crowd had gathered at the doors of 
Concert Hall. When the doors were opened, the seats were filled in 
a few minutes. 

At a quarter past seven, Mr. Barker took the stand. 

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 

As my opponent still contends that I have not observed the true 
order of debate, I must again make a few remarks on that point. 
The question for consideration is two-fold. 

1. Is the Bible of Divine origin ? 

2. Are its contents, when the book is regarded as of divine 
authority, calculated to exert a salutary or an injurious influence on 
man's character. 

My opponent contends that the Bible is of Divine origin, and, in 
proof of his position, appeals, first, to internal, and, secondly, to ex- 
ternal evidence. 

If my opponent had opened the debate, as he ought to have done, 
he would have told you, I suppose, what he means by internal evidence, 
and presented you with specimens of it. He would next have given 
you his definition of external evidence, and presented you with spe- 
cimens of that. My opponent, however, did not take the lead. It 
consequently fell to my lot to open the debate. My business was, to 
show that the Bible was not of Divine origin, but of purely human 
origin. I accordingly proceeded to show, that the style and contents 
of the book were exactly such as we should naturally expect in human 
writings — that there was nothing in the style or contents of the Bible 
to prove it divine, but every thing to prove it merely human. I dwelt 
prncipally on the doctrines of the Bible. I showed, that the repre- 
sentations of God and his works given in the Bible, were foolish and 
blasphemous ; and that different portions of the book gave contradic- 
tory representations of Grod's character on every point. I further 
showed, that the Bible inculcated a defective and a bad morality — 
that it encouraged and sanctioned the grossest vices, and the blackest 
and most revolting crimes, and that it held forth for our admiration 
and imitation, imperfect and evil examples — examples of falsehood 
and cruelty — of licentiousness, treachery and murder. I also gave you 
specimens of historical contradictions, philosophical errors, and of 
monstrous and impossible fables. In all this, I was keeping close to the 
question, as my opponent must by this time see. In short, I have 
not ceviated one hair's breadth from the exact line of argument, 
except to follow the irrevalant remarks of the Doctor. I shall follow 
the same course of argument to-night, till I have finished my remarks 
on the contents of the Bible. On Monday night, I expect to proceed 
to notice what is called the external evidence for the superhuman 
origin of the Bible. My opponent will probably give his views on the 
same subject, and I shall follow with what may be necessrry in the 
shape of a reply. 

At the close of my last speech, I was speaking on the Bible account 



70 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE 



of the flood. The ark, as I said, was to be 150 yards long, 25 wide, 
and 15 deep. It was to have three stories. The room inside would 
be about 56 ; 00 cubic yards. TMs ark was to hold, 

1. Noah and his family, (eight persons,) with food and other things 
necessary for their comfort, for upwards of a year. 

2. Seven pairs of all birds and of all clean beasts, and pairs of all 
other rattle, and of all creeping things. 

3 Food for all these living things, for more than a year. 

These animals were all to be gathered together, and taken into the 
ark by Noah. Noah was also to provide them all with food, Noah 
and his family were to feed, and water, and tend all these animals, 
and keep all clean. There was only one door in the ark, and that was 
shut ; and but one small window, and that was closed. 

The number of animals would not, according to modern naturalists 
be fewer than a million and a half. One hundred and fifty distinct 
species have already been described by zoologists, and the probable 
number of species existing is not less than half a million. Pairs 
of each species, and seven pairs of all birds and clean beasts, 
would make the number to be provided for about a million and a half. 
Noah and his family would therefore, have to feed, water, and keep 
clean 2500 a minute every day ; a thousand times more than they 
could possibly do. And all, or most of these creatures would be kept 
in the dark, without fresh air. The impossibilities implied in this 
story are innumerable. It would be impossible for Noah to collect 
the animals. He could not have collected the necessary supplies of 
food. The ark would not have held the animals, nor a tenth, nor a 
thirtieth of them, so as to leave room to go among them and attend to 
them. It would not even have held the necessary food for them. 
Then, many of the animals could not have changed climates without 
dying. One window could not afford the means of ventilation, es- 
pecially if placed in the roof. Two stories must have been in total 
darkness, and without a breath of fresh air. Eight persons could not 
attend to so many animals, they could not feed, water, and keep clean 
a thousandth part of them, in such a place as the ark. And no inti- 
mation is given that God provided for the creatures in the ark by any 
miraculous means. The contrary is intimated. Besides what need of 
an ark at all, if God was to keep things alive by a miracle ? Hence 
naturalists, even Christian naturalists, give up the story. They declare 
their conviction, that no universal deluge has ever happened since the 
creation of man, and that such an ark as that described in the Bible 
would be utterly unequal to the accommodation of pairs and seven 
pairs of all animals on the face of the earth. I will read you some 
passages from Professor Hitchcock, one of your own countrymen, 
a learned and a respectable man, and a Christian minister : — 

a Among well-informed geologists, at least, the opinion is almost universal, 
that there are no facts in their science which can be clearly referred to the 
Noachian deluge ; that is, no traces in nature of that event. 

" Modern geologists have, until recently, supposed that the traces of Noah's 
deluge might still be seen upon the earth'3 surface. I say its surface ; for 
none of them imagined those effects could have reached a great depth. Over 
a large part of the northern hemisphere they found extensive accumulations 
of gravel and bowlders, which had been removed often a great distance from 
their parent rocks, while the ledges beneath were smoothed and straited, ob- 
viously by the grating over them of these piles of detritus. How very natural 
to refer these effects to the agency of currents of water ; just such currents as 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



might have resulted from a universal deluge. But the inference was a hasty 
one. For when geologists came to study the phenomeDa of drift or diluvium, 
as these accumulations of travelled matter are called, they found the currents 
of water alone would not explain them all. Some other agency must have 
been concerned ; and the general opinion now is, that drift has been the 
result of the joint action of water and ice ; and nearly all geologists suppose 
that this action took place before man's existence on the globe." 

Again : — 

" The first difficulty in the way of supposing the flood to have been literally 
universal, is the great quantity of water that would have been requisite. 

"The amount necessary to cover the earth to the tops of the highest moun- 
tains, or about five miles above the present oceans, would be eight times 
greater than that existing on the globe at this time. 

" A second objection to such a universality is, the difficulty of providing for 
the animals in the ark. 

" Calculations have indeed been made, which seemed to show that the ark 
was capacious enough to hold the pairs and septuples of all the species. But, 
unfortunately, the number of species assumed to exist by the calculators was 
vastly below the truth. It amounted only to three or four hundred ; whereas, 
the actual number already described by zoologists is not less than one hun- 
dred and fifty thousand ; and the probable number existing on the globe is 
not less than half a million. And for the greater part of these must provision 
have been made, since most of them inhabit either the air or the dry land. 
A thousand species of mammalia, six thousand species of birds, two thousand 
species of reptiles, and one hundred and twenty thousand species of insects 
are already described, and must have been provided with space and food. 
Will any one believe this possible, in a vessel not more than four hundred and 
fifty feet long, seventy-five feet broad, and forty- five feet high ] 

"The third and most important objection to this universality of the deluge 
is derived from the facts brought to light by modern science, respecting the 
distribution of animals and plants on the globe. 

" If tropical animals and plants, for instance, were to migrate to the tem- 
perate zones, and especially to the frigid regions, they could not long survive ; 
and almost equally fatal w r ould it be for the animals and plants of high lati- 
tudes to take up their abode near the equator. But even within the tropics, 
we find distinct species of animals and plants on opposite continents. Indeed, 
naturalists reckon a large number of botanical and zoological districts, or pro- 
vinces, as they are called, within which they find certain peculiar groups of 
animals and plants, with natures exactly adapted to that particular district, 
but incapable of enduring the different climate of adjoining districts. 

"iNow, suppose the animals of the torrid zone at the presnt day to attempt, 
by natural means, to reach the temperate zone; who does not know that 
nearly all of them must perish ? N or is it any easier to conceive how, after 
the flood, they could have migrated into all continents, and islands, and 
climates, and how each species should have found the place exactly fitted to 
its constitution, as we now find them. Indeed, the idea of their collection 
a nd dispersion in a natural way is altogether too absurd to be believed." 

Such are the views of Professor Hitchcock. It is true, the Pro- 
fessor endeavours to save the credit of the Bible, by recourse to new 
rules of interpretation ; but his labour, in my opinion, is vain. 

Dr. Pye Smith, and Dr. John Harris, of England, Prof. St. John, 
of America, and a number of other Christian geologists, agree with 
Professor Hitchcock. They give up the common account of a universal 
deluge. Of course, their testimony is not infallible ; but how forcible 
must have been the evidence, to induce such men to give up the com- 
mon doctrine, at the risk of their reputation,. their incomes, and their 
friends. 

We will now notice a few other passages of the Old Testament. 
We stated, that the book of Genesis gives Lwo very different, and ap- 
parently contradictory accounts of Abraham. According to one ac- 
count, Abraham lived to be one hundred years old before he had a 



78 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



son. He then become a father only by a miracle. Sarah, too, is 
said to have been past age, so that a double miracle had been wrought 
to secure the fulfilment of the promise respecting the birth of Isaac. 
The apostle Paul, and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, both 
speak of Abraham as being as good as dead before the birth of Isaac : 
"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now 
dead, when he was about a hundred years old, neither yet the dead- 
ness of Sarah's womb," Romans 4 : 19. 

The passage in Hebrews is as follows : — " Therefore sprang there 
even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the 
sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea-shore innu- 
mearble." Hebrews 11 : 12. Sarah lived about forty years after this. 
She died at the age of 127. Abraham had now been as good as dead 
for nearly forty or fifty years. What shall we say, if we find it re- 
corded that this same Abraham, without any intimation of miraculous 
aid, marries again, and becomes the father of a numerous family. We 
do find it so recorded in Genesis 25 : — " Then again Abraham took 
a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and 
Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah." 

Here is a numerous family for a man fifty years after he was as 
" good as dead : " and yet no mention is made of a miracle ! 

And again, we are told that Lot was a righteous man. Notwith- 
standing this endorsement of his character, we find, that when the 
men of Sodom conpassed his house round, and demanded, for the 
basest of purposes, the two strangers that tarried with him, Lot 
went forth among them, and told them that he could not surrender 
his guests, but that he had two virgin daughters, and that he would 
surrender these instead of the strangers ! The story is inconceivable. 
I will not say that no righteous man would do this ; but I will say 
that no unrighteous man, with any remains of his original nature 
in his heart, would volunteer to surrender his virgin daughters to a 
fate more horribly revolting than burying them alive or sacrificing them 
as a burnt-offering. 

There are other statements in Genesis which physiology forbids us 
to accept as true, and which decency forbids us to describe. One of 
them is the account, in the nineteenth chapter, of the parentage of 
Moab and Ben-Ammi. 

I will now give you a few specimens of contradictory statements 
found in the New Testament. Matthew 27 ; 44, says: 

" The thieves, also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his 
teeth.', 

But we find in Luke that only one of the thieves did so. 

" And one of the malefactors which were hanged, railed on him, saying If 
thou be the Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering, rebuked 
him, saying," &c. Luke 23 : 30. 

We find several glaring contradictions in the case of Judas. Mat- 
thew says : — 

"Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was con- 
demned, repented himself and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the 
chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the 
innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us 1 see thou to that. And 
he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and 
hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



79 



net lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury 
strangers in. Wherefore, that field is called the field of blood unto this day. 
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah, the prophet." 

Now, mark, there is no such passage, nor any similar one, in Jere- 
miah. There is one something like it in Zachariah, but it is no pro- 
phecy of Judas, nor any one else. 

" And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, 
whom they of the children of Israel did value ; and gave them for the potter's 
field, as the Lord appointed me." Matthew 27: 3 — 10. 

Here we find that Judas took the pieces of silver to the chief 
priests and elders, that he cast them down, and went and hanged 
himself, and that the chief priests bought with the money the potter's 
field. But a very different story is told in the first chapter of Acts. 
I will read the passage : — * 

" Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the 
Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, spake before concerning Judas, which 
was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had 
obtained a part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the 
reward of iniquity ; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and 
all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jeru- 
salem ; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that 
is to say, the field of blood." Acts 1 : 16 — 19. 

Now, here are several palpable contradictions : one says, the chief 
priests purchased the field ; the other, that Judas purchased it ; one 
says that Judas hanged himself ; the other, that he burst asunder, 
and that all his bowels gushed out. 

The few instances I have given will suffice to show the imperfec- 
tion of the New Testament narrative, and to show that its real nature is 
wholly incompatible with the idea of its divine origin. 

I now proceed with my reply to my opponent's former speech. 
My opponent appears to have misunderstood some of my statements 
on death-bed scenes. What I said was, that I had seen Infidels 
peaceful and composed on the approach of death, and that I had 
seen Christians full of horror on his approach. The Doctor may 
find, among my earlier works, a memoir of a pious lady, who had 
the wildest paroxysms of horror on her dying bed. I did not, how- 
ever, say that the dving horrors of Christians are always the result 
of gloomy and horrible ideas of God. They are often the result of 
natural causes. There are some diseases that affect the dying in much 
the same way as delirium tremens affect the drunkard. The suffer- 
ers fancy themselves assailed with fiery demons, about to drag them 
to the burning gulf. It was so with the friend whose memoir I 
published. 

The dying horrors of others may arrise from similar causes. Still, 
the character of God, as portrayed by Orthodox Christianity, together 
with other Orthodox notions about devils, hell, and eternal torments, 
have a natural tendency to make men go about in fear and trembling, 
even while in health ; and their power to torture people when weak- 
ened by disease, or deranged by brain or nervous fevers, is truly 
awful. 

The Doctor says that if all have sinned, and there be no forgive- 
ness for us, a fearful retribution must await us hereafter. That does 
not follow. Men may sin, and pay the penalty here in the present 



80 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



life. If the sinner amend his ways, he may raise himself to purity 
and peace, to dignity and happiness. The pains or punishments of 
sin begin with the sin. They are meant to cure the sinner of his 
sinful tendencies. If they answer this end, the pain or punishment 
gradually ceases. We do not believe in Orthodox punishments, any 
more than in Orthodox forgiveness. 

The Doctor read some account of Paine and Francis Newport, but 
he give us no proofs that the accounts he read were true. To us, 
they seemed like falsehoods. He must be aware, that religious par- 
ties do not always speak the truth of those who differ from them. 
The advocates ot old abuses have always been ready to say all man- 
ner of evil against reformers. The Orthodox sectarians and priests 
of his day called Jesus himself, according to the Gospel account, a 
wine-bibber, an enemy to Csesar, a sower of sedition, a blasphemer, 
and a devil. He knows, or ought to know, what stories the Catholics 
published against Luther. Is he sure, has he good and sufficient 
proof, that the stories he read respecting Paine are not slanders ? I 
repeat, they soundtd like slanders to me. Men do not often make 
such formal speeches to the dying, as the anonymous one which 
the Doctor read over last night. But they do sometimes write them, 
as occasions seem to require, in defenee of their creeds and churches, 
or as the means of destroying the influence of reformers. I never take 
the character of a Protestant from a zealous Catholic ; and I never 
take the character of a Catholic from a zealous Protestant. Religi- 
ous parties never keep to the truth when speaking of their opponents. 
All know this. 

I know that priests have belied Paine's writings ; and if they would 
lie respecting his published works, which are open to all, and which 
can speak for themselves, we may judge what liberties they would 
take with his private character after his death. I have read his works, 
and have found the statements published respecting them by Watson, 
Simpson, and others, to be false and slanderous in the extreme. If 
I could read the true story of his life and death, I should probably 
find the stories published by his enemies respecting his private char- 
acter and dying hours, to be still falser. 

I know how such stories frequently originate. There are persons 
who get their living by inventing such things. There are large 
establishments that keep people employed the whole year round in 
collecting and manufacturing those tales of Infidel depravity and 
death bed horrors, 

We are no idolators of Thomas Paine, but we have read his life, 
by different authors, and have acquainted ourselves with his writings, 
both on politics and religion, and our conviction is, that he was a 
lover of truth and of virture, and a devoted friend of man. His 
writings abound with noble sentiments. His courage and disinter- 
estedness shine forth continually. He assails old errors and inhuman 
institutions, with such determination and power, that one cannot but 
feel, in reading his works, that he was a true reformer, and a genuine 
friend of man. It would be folly to say of any man's writings, that 
they were absolutely perfect, or of any man's life, that it was free 
from imperfection or error, ; but we should be unfaithful to the cause 
of truth and righteousness, if we did not declare our conviction, that 
Paine was a great and noble man, and that, by his labours and his 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



81 



sufferings in the cause of truth and freedom, he made mankind his 
debtors, and entitled himself to a place among the great benefactors 
of our race. 

I have a multitude of documents, of the most creditable kind, un- 
answerable, in fact, bearing on his life and labors, his hours of sick- 
ness, and his death, from which I should be glad to quote, if I had 
time ; but I have not. Another opportunity will be afforded me, I 
expect, of speaking on this subject ; I shall, therefore, proceed with 
the debate. 

My opponent's quotations respecting Francis Newport need no 
answer ; they carried their own refutation along with them. How 
could he know that he was more miserable than any spirit in hell ? 
Besides, it is ridiculous to call a man an unbeliever, who believes in 
devils, hell, and everlasting torments. None but christians believe 
in such things. The whole story of Francis Newport is manifestly a 
priestly forgery, written and published for the purpose of frightening 
people into unreasoning subjection to priestly authority. 

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BE EG. 

(Two rounds of enthusiastic applause.) It is sometimes well, 
when the smoke of battle has cleared away, to look at the praciical 
result, before renewing the contest. Before proceeding in the positive 
argument on the internal evidence of the scriptures, I propose to sum 
up a few points already established. I would remark, 1st, that the 
truth of the Bible does not rest on the ability of any human ad- 
vocate ; and that it might be impossible for any intellect to explain 
all its pages, for they are based on the wisdom of God and not of 
man. My opponent's mode of arguing is extremely unphilosophical. 
He has no broad and satisfactory views, exhaustive of the subject, 
but continues to urge insulated objections. 2d. He produces again 
and again, matters which may be considered settled, after the over- 
whelming array of evidence in their favor. I have shown you that he 
cannot tell you the name of the God he worships, without quoting 
the Bible which he rejects. The word 'Godhead,' quoted by him 
from the first chapter of Romans, to show that his attributes may ba 
learned from Nature, is used by the Apostle simply to denote the 
unity of the Divine nature, in opposition to the polytheism of 
antiquity. The light of nature is sufficient to enable us to discover 
many of the attributes of Jehovah. Without the Bible, a man 
cannot tell who made him. How can he know without it, the im- 
mortality of the soul ? Neither Plato, nor Socrates, nor Cicero, 
could solve the problem. They hoped it might be so. Cicero 
declared that though he fondly hoped he would live beyond the 
tomb, the sight of death never failed to fill him with a shuddering 
dread of annihilation. Revelation alone can dispel the gloom that 
hangs over the portals of the other world. 

My opponent speaks of the heaven of all nations. The heathen 
have no heaven. With all their attainments in knowledge, the 
Elysium of the ancients was nothing but a Paradise of shades, where 
gloomy spirits flitted to and fro in silent joylessness. He says, too, 
that the heathen have a hsll ! Does he accept this conclusion of 
human reason ? Does he believe in retribution in another world — a 

F 



82 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE , 



doctrine usually scouted by Infidels ? He has seen Infidels die in 
peace, because their God is not malignant ; and yet he assures us, 
almost in the same breath, that their God never forgives sin ! He 
has taken infinite pains te prove to us that Infidels have no Saviour ! 
I have shown before how some of their leaders have died, by state- 
ments authenticated as well as facts can be; how they left this world 
in horror and trembling despair. They hoped for nothing after the 
breath was out of the body. It is true, as he says, that the trans- 
gression of physical laws is always followed by the penalty. Out of 
his own mouth is he condemned, for moral evil must be punished 
under the same law, and by the same analogy. (Applause.) On 
their own ground, Infidels are doomed to hell, for their God never 
forgives sin ! Their own champion has proved the existence of a 
hell. (Applause.) Blessed be God, say we, who has given us the 
doctrine of salvation by grace ! Jesus Christ has brought life and 
immortality out of the shades of heathen doubt, and has made a light 
to shine on the black midnight of unassisted reason. 

My opponent quoted part of a hymn, and, by quoting a very small 
part, grossly perverted its meaning. I will read it. It is No. 201, 
in the old Methodist hymn-book : — 

(< Part of thy name divinely stands 
On all thy creatures writ." 

This he quoted ; but he did not quote the next verse, which, in 
allusion to the Bible, says : — 

" Here the whole Deity revealed." 

True, part of the attributes of God can be learned from Nature ; 
but the question between us is, whether all of them can. Had he 
quoted the whole hymn, it would have been seen to bear me out. 
(Applause.) My opponent would have found that the good old 
Methodist hymns do not sustain his theology now as they once did. 
(Laughter and loud applause.) 

My opponent rejects the doctrine of the atonement. Well, he 
accepts human reason as a sufficient guide. It has guided the 
heat en. Will he accept their conclusion 1 If so, he must accept 
the a tonement, for the heathen have always felt the need of sacrifice. 
But he rejects what they believe, and stands a living witness of 
the insufficiency of natural reason to guide us to positive truth. 
(Applause.) Behold how pride is in conflict with doubt ! How 
nece-sary it is that Jesus should say to the troubled heart, Peace, be 
still ! The christian's soul is hushed in its triumph, because his heart 
is stayed upon God. (Applause.) I have shown from his own 
mouth, that despisers are without God and without, hope in the 
world. He may say that he has seen Infidels die happy It may be 
so. No one will dispute his assertion. But it sometimes happens 
that he asserts on two opposite bides, and we are then puzzled which 
one to take. (Laughter, applause, and a few hisses.) I'll deal 
kindly with him, and take whatever he holds now, hoping for grace to 
him, that may get something better, and grow to believe that the 
Bible is the word of God. He has seen Infidels die with calmness. 
Wi at is their calmness but a stupid torpor, but the quiet of a strong 
de'usion which, on account of their rejection of the truth, they have 
been allowed to fall into, that they may perish 1 Their consciences 



REMARKS OF DR, BERG. 



So 



are seared as with a hot iron. The scornful manner in which he 
speaks of justification by faith, proves the truth of the Scripture 
declaration, that to the Jews, the cross is a stumbling-block, and to 
the Greeks, foolishness. (Cry in the audience of "Time up.") 

Dr. Berg (to the Moderator) — My time up ? 

Moderator Rev. J. Chambers. — No, you have several minutes 
more. 

Dr. Breg.— Surely, he knows that the Bible considers no faith 
good for anything, unless associated with good works. I shall not 
consume time by discussing this question. What he says is not 
worthy of a serious refutation before a Christian community. Any 
child that has sat under the teachings of a Christian pulpit knows 
that no faith justifies, unless it is united with works. How, then, 
dare my opponent say the contrary ? (Applause.) Cries of question — 
question — goon — and a few hisses.) I am sticking to the question ; 
and if I don't, (cries of question,) I only follow my opponent. 
(Question ! Turn him out ! Let's have Noah's Ark ! A storm of 
shouts and hisses, and great disorder.) 

Mr. Barker. — I hope no man who calls himself a friend of mine — 
(Take your seat, Barker ! And shure, outh with him ! Laughter, 
and the audience subsided once more into silence.) 

Dr. Berg. — I will proceed to offer the proof which lies in rich pro- 
fusion around this part of mj subject ; but to what end 1 It would 
be more logical in my opponent to refute the positive evidence I have 
offered, than to confine himself to negation and insulated objections. 
"He argues foregone conclusions. In another mode, he would find 
something worthy of the ability for which he enjoys a reputation. He 
renews objections again and again answered. Does the sun give no 
light or heat, because the telescope can descry spots on its surface ? 
I do not deny that there are some parts of the Bible obscure, some 
mysteries ihat cannot be explained. But what then ? This very 
fact is evidence that it is no fraud. In any communication of the 
Infinite to the Finite, we might anticipate mystery. And are there 
no mysteries in Nature ? Will he tell me how long the grass grows 1 
How the planets are kept in their orbits 1 We cannot reason with 
certainty of God as we can of man. We can explain the works of 
man, but not of God. The mass of Christians who have had ex- 
perience of God, have found their souls satisfied with the Bible. 
This, in itself, is strong collateral evidence of its truth. To 
appreciate the Bible, there is necessity, not only of a careful study of 
its contents, but an impartial one. Unhappily, Infidels approach it 
with so much prejudice, that they wrest the truth to their own de- 
struction. They approach it with a foregone determination to dis- 
believe. Instead of a humble desire to learn the truth, they wish to 
Ccivil at the doctrine. They veil their eyes to all perception of the 
truth. Now, it is impossible to explain light to the blind j he will 
deny the sun, moon and stars, because he cannot see them. 
(Applause.) He stands there, his face turned upwards, winking and 
blinking at the heavens, in a perverse desire to substitute sight for 
faith. You might as well descant upon the melody of music to the 
deaf. What avail millions of witnesses, millions from all quarters of 
the globe, who have found joy in believing ? They differ from him, 
and, therefore, he denies. His miserable negations are a substitute 



• 



84 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



for argument — his cavils an offset to all positive proof. The Gospel 
has no power to penetrate, nor practical holiness to soothe and com- 
ort his heart. He breaks the brightest link of the golden chain 
which binds him to his Maker. The hopes of the Christian he 
cannot appreciate. Here, again, he illustrates the truth of Scripture ; 
he cannot appreciate these things, because they are spiritually 
discerned. 

There are certain marks which ought to convince Infidels that the 
attributes of God are to be found only in his revelation. Even Infi- 
dels are compelled to borrow the name and atributes of God from its 
pages. Why do they believe in one God, and not many 1 Why do 
they prefer Deism to Polytheism 1 They may learn his power and 
wisdom from Nature ; but how will they learn from it his mercy, 
truth, justice, eternity, and omnipresence ] I see the sickness in the 
world, and that bitter streams mingle with every fountain of pleasure. 
How can they, by the light of Nature, reconcile this with Divine 
mercy ? I see oppression ; the righteous languish, and the tyrant is 
prosperous ; the wicked flourish like a green bay-tree, and the poor 
man is plunged into disgrace. These are common moral phenomena, 
as well deserving explanation as any of the incidents of Nature, which 
all the astrology and geology of Infideldom can expound. (Applause.) 

Another point : How were the Jews favoured w ; th a knowledge of 
the unity of God, when other nations, more advanced in the arts 
and sciences, were ignorant 1 Here is a problem worthy of my oppo- 
nent's boasted philosophy and science. He has an opportunity, by 
solving it, to sustain his reputation. Let us see if he can make* 
more impression on it than his coadjutors, who have long been ham- 
mering on it with their mallets. Better do this than take a geological 
fossil, and attempt to batter down the Bible with it, as Samson slew 
the Philistines with the jaw bone of an ass. (Vociferous applause ) 
I assert, without fear of contradiction, that there is not, in the whole 
world, an Infidel that believes — (Cry of " Time up." Dr. Berg took 
his seat amid long continued and hearty applause.) 

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 

(Applause and a few sounds of h'sh ) I would once more request 
the audience to listen, and allow the speakers to proceed without 
interruption. Thus far the debate has proceeded with a considerable 
degree of order, and I trust that order and peace will reign to its close. 

Dr. Berg thinks, not that I have misquoted, but made an unwar- 
rantable use of a Methodist hymn. The truth is, I was as far from 
perverting the meaning of the hymn, as from misquoting its words. I 
quoted the hymn simply to show, that the word Deity, which is tho 
Latin word for God-head, was used by the author for the whole of 
the Divine attributes. " Here the whole Deity is known," plainly 
meaning, all the attributes of the Deity. Paul uses the word God- 
head in the same sense when he says, that the eternal power and God- 
head are revealed by Nature. His meaning manifestly is, that the 
attributes of God generally, all those attributes that can be known at 
all, are made known by God's works, clearly made known, so that the 
Gentiles, if ignorant of God, are without excuse. I did not say that 
the hymn taught the do^tnr.e that the whole God-head is revealed by 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



85 



Nature. I said the contrary. I simply quoted the hymn to show in 
what sense the word Deity or God-head was used by Orthodox divines. 
It was Paul that I said taught the doctrine that the whole God-head, 
so far as it can be made known at all, is made known by the visible 
universe. 

The Doctor says my course is unphiiosophical, that I continue to 
deal in isolated objections and secondary matters, instead of dealing 
with the overwhelming array of positive evidence he has adduced to 
prove the Divine authority of the Bible. I answer, I am not aware 
that we have been furnished with any such overwhelming array of 
proofs. I have no recollection of any proof of the Divine authority 
of the Bible adduced by my opponent. I know of no such proof. I 
have certainly heard no such proof in the present debate. Will he 
mention a solitary decisive proof of the Divine authority or superhu- 
man origin of the Bible which he has advanced ? The truth is, there 
can be no proof of the Divine authority of a book that contradicts 
itself, and that contradicts the oracles of God in Nature, as the Bible 
does. There can be no evidence of the Divine authority of a book 
that abounds with blasphemy and immorality. He says, T cannot 
give the name of the God I worship, without borrowing from the Bible. 
Had God no name, then, till the Bible was written ? The ablest 
portions of the Bible were not written till the world was three thou- 
sand years old. Had men no name for God all that time 1 The 
oldest book in the Bible is supposed to be the book of Job ; yet, ac- 
cording to that book, men had both a name fur God, and had lofty 
ideas of his character, in some respects, before the book was written. 
In the Book of Job, which is generally admitted to be the work of a 
Pagan Deist, are to be found much worthier and nobler views of God, 
than are to be found in the writings of Moses. If Job and his friends 
could have such superior views of God, as well as know his name, 
before any portion of the Bible was written, what should hinder men 
in our days from having worthy views of his character, and giving 
him a suitable name, independent of aid from the Bible 1 The truth 
is, the man who studies God in Nature, without the Bible, is infi- 
nitely likelier to get true views of God, than he who gets his ideas 
of God from the Bible, without regard to Nature. ' The man who 
regards the Bible as a true revelation of God, can hardly fail to have 
false and blasphemous ideas of Him. 

My opponent says I cannot learn from Nature why God created 
me. Can he learn from the Bible why God created him 1 Will he 
show us, first, the passage which says why God created us, and prove, 
second, that what the passage says is correct 1 The Orthodox notion 
as to the end for which God created us, we regard as false and mis- 
chievous. If Nature, if our own nature, does not reveal the end for 
which we are created, nothing does. Our common sense teaches us 
to consider that as the end for which a thing is made, which is the 
highest end the thing can answer. The highest end we are fitted to 
answer, is our own perfection and enjoyment, and the promotion and 
happiness of our fellow-men. This is enough. 

My opponent asks how it came to pass that the Jews had higher 
and better views of God than the more learned Pagans around them. 
I have yet to learn that they had. It will be time enough to attempt 
to account for an alleged fact, when it has been proved to be a fact, 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



The Pagans could not have more blasphemous or more revolting views 
of God than the authors of the earlier parts of the Bible. Tt would 
be easier to prove that the Jews borrowed their better views of God 
from the Pagans, than that the Pagans borrowed their better views 
of God from the Jews. To charge us with borrowing our ideas of 
God from the Bible is ridiculous. The Bible does not teach the 
doctrines respecting God which we hold. Nor do we hold many of 
those doctrines respecting God which the Bible teaches The Bible 
teaches that God is subject to human weaknesses and imperfections, 
that he exists in the shape of a man, is limited in his presence, his 
habitation, his knowledge, his power. That he eats, drinks, talks, 
rests, and gets refreshed like men ; that he is partial, unjust, revenge- 
fu', cruel, passionate, changeable, pleased with sacrifices and the smell 
of burning flesh, and a hundred other horrible, foolish, impossible, 
contradictory, and blasphemous things. Will any one say we borrow 
these doctrines from the Bible 1 We reject, we spurn, we loathe them. 
W e believe that God acts always in harmony with universal and un- 
changeable laws ; that he never violates, suspends, or changes the 
laws of Nature. The stories of miracles, special providences, divine 
judgments, supernatural revelations, partial affections, elections of par- 
ticular people, institutions of ceremonies, making covenants, writing' 
books, producing beings out of the natural order of generation, and a 
thousand similar stories found in the Bible, are all fables. As for 
the word God, that has not been borrowed from the Bible. Tt is not 
Hebrew, but Saxon. The name of God in the Bible is not one, but 
many. None of them have anything about them specially to recom- 
mend them. They are no better than our Saxon name, nor so good. 
The Hebrew name most commonly used, simply means strong. It is 
generally used in the plural, intimating that the earlier Bible writers 
believed in many Gods. Hence, they frequently represent the Gods 
as appearing as several. They appeared so to Abraham and Lot. 

They speak of themselves as several. Let us make man in our own 
image. We must shut him out of Eden, lest he become one of us. 
Both in the name we give God, and in the views we hold of his cha- 
m racter and ways of working, we are far in advance of the Bible. And 
we repeat, if God cannot be known by his works, the Bible must be 
false, for it says he can. 

But how can we know his glorious attributes of mercy, justice, truth, 
&c, except from the Bible ? We answer again, the Bible itself 
declares that the heavens declare the glory of God, that the earth is 
full of his goodness, that all his works speak of his goodnes, — (Ex- 
plosion of shouts, contemptuous laughter, hissess, groans, and cries of 
Oh ! Oh !) 

Dr. Berg.— Allow me, my friends, to request you to let the dis- 
cussion proceed. Let him say what he pleases, and do not interrupt 
him unnecessarily. 

Mr. Barker. — I suppose those who interrupted me have some way 
of justifying their conduct in their own eyes. I confess, the expres- 
sions of surprise, derision, and contempt with which my remarks were 
interrupted, appear to me to reveal a state of mind to which I have 
not, of late, been accustomed. If my opponent says we c%nnot learn 
the attributes of God from Nature, he contradicts the Bible. Eithe 
his arguing, or the Bible is false ; and whichever it be, my answer i 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



87 



conclusive. The truth is, the Bible is right on this point. Nature 
dues reveal God, so far as God can be revealed. Those who believe 
more of God than Nature reveals, believe at random — believe without 
reason. The doctrines respecting God and his doings, that contradict 
Nature, are false. 

The Doctor says that Reason and Nature cannot dispel the gloom 
that hangs over the future. The future presents a gloomier aspect to 
the believer in the Bible, and especially to the believer in any of the 
Orthodox interpretations of the Bible, than to the unbeliever, who 
rejects the authority of the Bible, and the doctrines of Orthodoxy. 

The Bible talks of an eternal hell, of a bottomless pit, a lake of fire 
burning with brimstone, shrouded in darkness, thronged with innu- 
merable millions of damned souls, weeping, wailing, and gnashing 
their teeth, with hosts of devils, held down in chains, suffering the 
vengeance of eternal fire, the smoke of the tormented ascending up for 
ever and ever. It teaches the horrible doctrine that but few are saved. 
Wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, 
and many there be that go in thereat. Strait is the gate, and narrow- 
is the way, that leadeth to life, and few there be that find it. Even 
pious believers are not free from gloomy fears of the future. They 
have many doubts as to their own salvation. Their ideas of faith, of 
grace, of assurance, and a number of other subjects, all tend to perplex 
them, and fill them with the most anxious doubts as to their final 
destiny. Even those that are free from doubts as to their own sal- 
vation, are in doubt as to the salvation of those dear to them. The 
thoughts of brothers, or sisters, parents or children, friends or neigh- 
bours, doomed to eternal horrors, haunt them continually. 

Not so with those who reject the authority of the Bible and Ortho- 
doxy. We have no fears of eternal torments, either for ourselves or 
others. Nature teaches no such horrors. She reveals no burning 
lakes, no bottomless pit, no endless torments. The gloomiest unbe- 
liever on earth fears nothing worse in the future, than a calm, unbro- 
ken, everlasting sleep. And the eternal slumber of our race is not a 
thousandth part so gloomy or so horrible a thought, as that of the 
eternal burning and ever-living tortures of a single soul. But many of 
the unbelievers of the present day, believe in immortality, and rejoice 
in hope of rational and eternal blessedness. Talk of the Bible and 
Orthodoxy dispelling the gloom that hangs over the future. It is 
preposterous. It wraps in gloom and horror both the future and the 
present. Nature shines sweetly on both, and whispers of hope and 
peace and blessedness to all. 

The Doctor says that Reason and Nature cannot reveal the details 
of the existence beyond this world. W e ask, Can the Bible 1 What 
details does it give ? What details do Christians think it gives ? It 
appears to me to give contradictory details. It is certain that be- 
lievers hold contradictory opinions on the subject. The Catholic 
believes in three worlds beyond the grave ; heaven, hell, and purga- 
tory. The Universalist believes in only one, a world of purity and 
blessedness for all. The generality of the Orthodox believe in two 
worlds, one a world of mysterious happiness, the other a world of 
boundless, unutterable and eternal misery. The Swedenborgians also 
believe in two future worlds, but they hold different opinions respecting 
the conditions and employments of the inhabitants. Some, who are 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



Orthodox in oilier respects, believe the wicked will perish, die, cease 
to be. and that the good alone shall be immortal. The opinions of 
the Orthodox, respecting the misery of the wicked, vary greatly. 
Some think the wicked are burnt in fire for ever ; that they are rolled 
to and fro on billows of burning pitch and brimstone, driven furiously 
by the breath of the Almighty. Others think the misery is internal, 
spiritual, the gnawing of a guilty conscience, and of insatiable ungrati- 
fied desires. They differ still more about heaven. Some place its 
happiness in a mysterious sight of God, called the beatific vision ; 
others place it in freedom from toil, sickness, hunger, and pain. Some 
place it in singing psalms, playing on harps, and worshipping Jesus. 
Others rationalize a little, and look for a blessedness resembling the 
blessedness of men on earth, harmonizing with man's nature. The 
less reverence the sects have for the teachings of the Bible, the more 
rational and cheering are their hopes and anticipations with respect to 
the future, and the less inclined they are to believe in the horrid and 
blasphemous doctrine of eternal torments. But there is no agreement 
among the sects. The Bible leaves every thing in doubt or darkness. 

My opponent says I have taken pains to prove that we have no 
Saviour. I have done no such thing. I have simply disclaimed any 
b.-lief in imputed righteousness, or salvation by faith in the merits of 
another. We believe in a Saviour ; a universal Saviour. A healing 
or a saving power pervades all Nature, and shows itself in every thing 
that lives. We have our Saviour within us, the only Saviour we want. 
(Explosion of contemptuous laughter.) There is a healing power in 
all things. Wound a tree, and the sap will flow to the wound and 
begin the healing process ; the severed fibres will be re-united, and 
the bark grow over the spot. Wound the flesh of your arm, and Na- 
ture, if you will only allow her to work unchecked, will heal the wound, 
and, perhaps, not leave even a scar. So with the soul. When you 
go in opposition to your sense of right and duty, you inflict a wound 
on your spirit ; but desist from evil doing, and the soul, in time, will 
recover its moral energy and peace. But repeat the wound on the 
tree, perpetually, and it will die. Repeat the wound on your body, 
continually, and inflammation and mortification will be the result. 
Inflict ddly wounds on the soul, and it will lose its moral power, and 
be utterly debased arid lost. But we have disclaimed all hope of for- 
giveness, the Doctor says. We have. We want no forgiveness. 
We are willing to bear the results of our misdoings. It is better we 
should bear them. The painful effects of sin tend to fortify us against 
temptation. We had rather be preserved from sinning, than sin and 
be forgiven. But there is no forgiveness. The doctrine is a delusion. 
We must bear the penalty if we sin. 

We Infidels are damned to an eternal hell, says my opponent, on 
our own principles, if God never forgives sin. Such talk is ridiculous. 
Infidels do not believe in an eternal hell, they cannot, therefore, on 
their own principles, be doomed to one. But how can we escape, if 
there be no forgiveness 1 We answer, by bearing the punishment of 
our sins in the present life ; by ceasing to sin, and wearing out the 
effects of sin. The Doctor can think of nothing but future, eternal 
punishment. We believe in no such punishment. The Doctor dis- 
tinguishes between physical laws and natural laws, and different pun- 
ishments for the transgressors of those different laws. We know of 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARK ER. 



80 



no such differences. Physical laws are moral laws, and all true moral 
laws are physical laws. There is but one kind of laws, and but one 
kind of punishment, and all are natural. Natural laws are the only 
moral laws ; and natural punishments are the only punishments to 
which we are liable. And forgiveness is a thing unknown in Nature. 
Amendment is what Nature demands ; her punishments are means of 
amendment. God's plan is, to cure the sinner, not to encourage him 
in sin by exempting him from punishment. 

My opponent asks, if I will accept as truth what the Heathen be- 
lieve about the atonement. The Heathen have been led to that 
doctrine by reason, he says. We ask for the proof that the Heathen 
were taught their doctrine of atonement by reason. Besson teaches 
us to reject both the Heathen and Orthodox Christian doctrine of atone- 
ment. We are no more bound to believe all that the Heathen believe, 
than my opponent is to believe ail the various doctrines held by all 
the sects of Christians. A man may have no guide but reason, and 
yet not follow reason faithfully. Will he accept the Catholic doctrine 
of purgatory, or of tran substantiation ; or the doctrine of destruction, 
or of universal salvation 1 Will he accept the doctrines of the Me- 
thodists, the Socinians, or the Unitarians ? He thinks himself under 
no obligation to do so. The doctrines of people who believe the Bible 
are not always in agreement with Bible teachings, he would say. Men 
may have the Bible, and not read it. They may read it, but not un- 
derstand it. They may understand it, and yet not yield in all things 
to its teachings. They may cling to their prejudices, or be ruled by 
their passions. So say we with regard to the Book of Nature. Men 
may have the Book of Nature and not read it. They may try to read 
it, and not always understand it. They may even understand it, and 
yet not give up every opinion at variance with its teachings. Besides, 
where is the proof that the Heathen have always regarded Nature as 
their guide 1 Have they no priests ; no sacred books ; no old tradi- 
tions ? And, further, Nature is progreseive. Man is progressive. He 
is ever becoming more a man. We cannot measure the possible at- 
tainments of man when fully developed, by his attainments in his un- 
developed infancy. Man can learn more from Nature now, than he 
once could. He has freer and fuller access to Nature than formerly. 
He is better able to read her lessons. If the Heathen had always 
studied Nature from the beginning, they would gradually have out- 
grown their errors and superstitions. Every age would have made 
them wiser and better. The laws of life and health, the laws of their 
moral and social nature, would have rapidly unfolded themselves to 
their view. Their knowledge, their power, their health ; their virtue, 
their resources, their enjoyments, would have increased from year to 
year, and the earth, and all things in it, would, ere this, have been 
subjected to their control, and made subservient to their interests and 
enjoyment. (Applause and hisses.) 

My opponent grants that Infidels may die happy, in consequence 
*of being given up to delusion. We answer, only allow the fact that 
Infidels, as you call them, may die happy, and we will account for 
the fact in our own way. He asks, whether I will deny the light and 
heat of the sun, because there are spots on its surface 1 No ; but if 
he should say there are no spots on the sun, and the spots should 
clearly show themselves, we would tell him he was in error. So with 



00 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



the Bible. If he says the Bible is of God, and that it is free from 
error and mistake, while we see errors and mistakes, contradictions 
and absurdities, immoralities and blasphemies in every part, we tell 
him he is in error here also. (Violent explosion of hisses, cries of 
fair-play, go on, hear hot) s>des, 8fc.,&c.) He acknowledges there 
are parts of the Bible that are obscure, mysterious. But that is not 
enough. The passages we have quoted are not obscure. Their mean- 
ing is plain enough ; but it is false, immoral, contradictory, blasphemous 
He says, we approach the Scriptures with prejudice, and in a spirit 
of hostility. Can he, then, read our hearts ? I thought that it was 
God alone who could do that. A man should be prepared with ir- 
resistible proofs, before he prefers such charges. Has my opponent 
got such proofs 1 Where are they 1 When a disputant makes such 
charges against an opponent, and knows that he cannot prove them, 
he places himself in an unenviable position. We have proof, the best, 
the strongest, the fullest proof the case admits, the charge is false. 
The truth is, so far from coming to the investigation of the question 
respecting the origin of the Bible, with prejudices against the Bible, 
or with feelings of hostility to the Bible, my prejudices and feelings 
all leaned the other way. My prejudices were all in favour of the 
prevailing doctrine, the doctrine of the superhuman origin and divine 
authority of the Bible. I was taught that doctrine from my earliest 
childhood. I received is as eternal truth. I looked on those who 
dared even to doubt it with the most painful suspicions. I reveren- 
ced the Bible next to God himself. The reverence with which my 
parents regarded the Bible ; the solemn manner in which they spoke 
of it ; the tones with which they read it ; the horror with which they 
regarded those who doubted or disbelieved it ; all tended to strength- 
en my belief in its divinity. All those whom I loved and revered, 
believed in its divinity. None but those whom I regarded as outcasts 
and profligates, as enemies of God and goodness, called its divinity in 
question. Every sermon or speech that I heard, and every book 
that I read, were in favour of the prevailing doctrine. My strongest 
passions were enlisted in its favour. I was taught that a belief in it 
was essential to eternal salvation ; " that to doubt of it was to run the 
risk of eternal damnation. My prejudices grew with my growth, and 
strengthened with ray strength. I sought to strengthen my belief by 
reading books on the subject, written by the ablest and most learned 
defenders of the divine authority of the Bible. I read every book on 
the subject I could find, on the popular side. I believed the books. 
1 supposed the writers of them to be learned and honest, and my 
assurance was increased. I preached and advocated the common 
doctrine. I defended it against unbelievers. I wrote several books 
in its favour. I received praise and rewards for my labour. My 
reputation, my friends, my interests, as well as my prejudices, affec- 
tions and passions, all joined to keep me to the Orthodox faith, When 
light at length compelled me to modify my belief, I yielded with the 
greatest reluctance. As long as I could, I resisted the light. I would" 
feign have closed my eyes against it. To change seemed horrible. The 
thought distressed me beyond measure. The consequences which 
threathened me in case of change, were truly terrible. My agony was 
often intense. Through the night, it deprived me of sleep ; through 
the day, it filled me with gloom. Nothing but an ardent love of truth, 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



01 



and an ever-anxious wish to be right, could have carried me through 
the struggle. 

And let me add, that this is the history of most of those called un- 
believers at the present day. They were brought up Christians. The 
prejudices of their education, their filial love and gratitude, their 
hopes of heaven, their fears of hell, were all g enlisted on the side of 
the popular belief. To change their views, exposed them to reproach 
and persecution ; to the loss of friends and reputation ; to excommu- 
nication from the Church, and to the threats of exclusion from heaven. 
Adherence to the doctrine held by my opponent, had the promise of 
the good things both of the life that now is, and of that which is to 
come ; while a change was threatened with loss of all. No men ever 
gave fuller proof of love of truth, or moral courage, or of fidelity to 
virtue, than many of those denounced as Infidels. They live the life 
of martyrs, and some of them die the death of martyrs. 

We came to the study of the Bible question with prejudice, our 
opponent says. How does he come 1 Has he no prejudice ? Is he 
perfectly impartial ? Has he no more leaning to the Orthodox view 
of the Bible than to ours ? Has he no hostility to unbelief ? Has 
he shown none 1 Have we had no proof of prejudice or hostility from 
others, during this debate 1 What mean those shouts, those hisses, 
and those frequent bursts of derision ? We speak not thus in anger, 
but for the sake of tiuth. We do not expect believers to come to 
such discussions free from prejudice. It is not possible for them to 
do so. Still, we have faith in truth. That which has conquered the 
prejudices of so many, will conquer the prejudices of others — will one 
day conquer the prejudices of all. 

We are prejudiced, the Doctor says. Suppose we are, has truth 
no power to conquer prejudice ? If the Gospel be the power of God, 
if the Bible be the word of God, ought it not to be able to overcome 
a few prejudices ? 

" To offer internal evidence of the divine origin of the Bible to In- 
fidels," says my opponent, " is like offering light to the blind.' Then 
why does he offer it ? Has he been reading and speaking all this 
while for the benefit of believers only 1 Why does he trouble him- 
self about internal evidence, if it can be appreciated by those only 
who do not need it 1 What ! give a candle to those who have the 
sun ? But unbelievers can appreciate internal evidence as well as 
others. The difficulty is, that my opponent's internal evidence of the 
divine authority of the Bible is not at hand. There is none. The 
internal evidence is all on the other side. It proves the Bible to be 
merely human. The difficulty with my opponent is, not that his 
hearers cannot $£e the light, but that he has got no light to impart 
to them. 

My opponent says, the blind will deny the sun. He takes for 
granted that we are the blind, and that his opinions are like the sun. 
If, instead of those big assertions, he would give us a little argument, 
it might answer his purpose better. Suppose we were to call our 
opinions the sun, and call all men wilfully blind who happened not 
to agree with us ; would it prove anything 1 The duty of disputants 
in a public discussion is, first, to state their views ; then, second, to 
give their reason for regarding them as truth, and to leave their hear- 
ers to decide, each for himself, which is right. Let both sides be 



92 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



fairly stated, and the arguments fully given, and the truth will 
triumph in the end. 

My opponent speaks of the consolations, the peace, the raptures of 
Christians, as a proof of the superhuman origin of the Bible. But 
consolations, peace and raptures are not confined to Christians ; all 
religionists enjoy them* They are enjoyed by the Pagans. They are 
enjoyed by the Mohammedans. They hold communion with God ; 
they find joy and peace in believing ; they experience raptures and 
transports, as well as the Christians. Are their religious and sacred 
books of divine origin ? Ts the Koran the word of God 1 Many of 
the Pagans have purer joys than Christians. They have not so 
terrible a mixture of gloom. They believe in no eternal torment, 
either for themselves or their friends. When the Missionaries 
threaten them with a hell of fire and brimstone, they smile, and say, 
" There may be people in your country bad enough to deserve such 
treatment, but we have no such sinners here." They think it mons- 
trous, to imsgaine that God can doom to eternal torments in hell-fire, 
men and women that they do not think worthy of imprisonment or 
death. 

The Christian must be terribly selfish, that can rejoice in the pros- 
pect opened to him by the Bible, as explained by its Orthodox ex- 
pounders. What is that prospect ? The certainty of endless and unut- 
erable torments to the great majority of mankind ; the certainty of 
endless torments to many of those most dear to him. If he be 
Methodist, he believes that God foreknew that the majority would be 
damned before he made them — that he made them with this frightful 
doom before them. The Calvanist believes that God predestinated 
the greater part of mankind to eternal torments ; choosing only the 
smaller portion for heaven and happiness. These doctrines cannot 
be matched, either for horror or blasphemy, by any nation to be found 
in the Pagan world. The views they present of God and futurity are 
enough to drive the believer mad. The man who believes in such doc- 
trines, and yet indulges himself in joy and raptures, is a monster. He 
is to be pitied, loathed, and abhorred, rather than envied. We do not 
want his joys. We prefer our own. (Hisses and applause.) 

My opponent asks, How are we to reconcile oppression and suffer- 
ing with the mercy and justice of God ? The Bible, he says, makes 
all this right. We answer, the Bible gives no explanation of the 
matter but what was given by the Pagans before the Bible was written. 
They believed that all would be righted in a future state. The Bible 
use of this doctrine is of evil tendency. It commands people to be 
content even in slavery ; instead of teaching them to try to raise them- 
selves from oppression. We wish to see things righted here. If all 
who suffer would unite to right them, they would soon be righted. 
Besides, is my opponent sure that the oppressor is happier than the 
oppressed in the present world ? There are some who think the 
wronged less miserable than the wronger. We shall not discuss this 
matter here ; but, it does appear to us, that the Bible tends to increase 
the evils of oppression, and the perplexity arising from the prevalence 
of oppression, rather than to abate the evils. 

My opponent charges the Deists with borrowing from the Bible. 
We suppose Deists have as much right to borrow from the Bible as 
others, if they find in it anything worth borrowing. Our principle is, 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER; 



93 



to seize on truth wherever we find it. But we have not borrowed 
all the Bible representations of God. We have only taken the good. 
How far we are indebted to the Bible we do not know ; but we 
think the Bible is more indebted to us. We have forced the be- 
lievers in the Bible to put better sense and more truth into the words 
of the Bible. Who forced the clergy to drop the old bad meaning of 
many parts of the Old Testament, and put them in a more respecta- 
ble and tolerable meaning ? The Deists. Who forced them to press 
a little geological truth into their interpretations of Genesis ? The 
Deists. And so it has always been. Men of science, freethinkers, 
philosophers, gather the truths revealed by Nature, and publish them 
abroad. The priests cry heresy, infidelity. They reproach and per- 
secute the teachers of truth. But the truth spreads. A few of the 
more honest and rational members of the church receive it. The 
lovers of truth among the unconverted receive it. The clergy find it 
necessary to yield a little. They acknowledge there is some truth in 
the new revelations, and contend that the Bible teaches the same 
truth, or agrees with it. They throw away the old interpretation of 
the Bible, and give the words of the book another meaning. They 
force them to speak astronomy and geology. 

We borrow our ideas of God from the Bible, we are told. Do we 
get our ideas of God's justice from the Bible 1 The Bible tells us 
God punishes the innocent, and lets the guilty escape. It tells us he 
punishes whole races for the sins of one individual. It tells us that he 
moves a man to sin, then kills seventy thousand innocents for his sin. 
It tells us that he destroys a whole nation, man, woman and child, for 
a sin committed four hundred and twenty years before they were born. 
Do we get our ideas of God's justice from such blasphemous repre- 
sentations as these ? Passages of the Bible represent God as infin- 
itely cruel. Did we learn God's mercy from these passages 1 It is 
strange that men's prejudices should be so strong as to enable them to 
maintain a position so absurd. But we remember the day when we 
were equally blind, and can pity those who are still deluded. We 
repeat the Church is more indebted to the world for light, than 
the world to the church. 

We are told that the purity of the Doctrines of the Bible prove it to 
be divine. But you must prove that they are pure. In order to do 
this, you must first ascertain what is pure. You must have a stand- 
ard of purity with which to compare the doctrines of the Bible. You 
must then prove that the doctrines of the Bible agree with the stand- 
ard. But where are you to find your standard of purity 1 Are we 
able, of ourselves, without the Bible, to find out what is pure, and to 
frame a perfect standard of purity ? If go, what need have we of a 
supernatural revelation 1 If we cannot judge what is pure doctrine, 
and what not, without the Bible, — if we cannot frame a standard of 
purity, independent of the Bible, — how can we test the teachings of 
the Bible ? Must we make our standard by the Bible, and so try the 
Bible by itself ? In this way we could prove any book perfect, pro- 
vided it did not contradict itself. But here is another difficulty with 
the Bible. It does contradict itself, so that if you prove one portion 
true and good, you prove another portion false and bad. But even 
where the Bible does not contradict itself, we can still test many por - 
tions of the Bible by our knowledge of facts. We can test its accounts 



14 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



of creation by our knowledge of geological facts. We can test its 
astronomical and meteorological teachings by astronomical and meteor- 
ological facts. We can test its teachings about human nature by our 
knowledge of our own nature, and by our experience and conscious- 
ness. And so in other matters. 

Take some of the teachings of the Bible respecting government. 
Some of them are so palpably false, that no man, who is not quite 
spiritually blind, can help seeing their falsehood. Other portions are 
so manifestly immoral, that it requires almost a miracle to keep men 
from being shocked at them. I will read from Eomans 13 : 1 — 6 : — 

" Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but 
of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore re- 
sisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God : and they that resist shall 
receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, 
but to the evil. Wilt thou, then, not be afraid of the power ] l)o that which 
is good and thou shalthave praise of the same : for he is the minister of God 
to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth 
not the sword in vain : for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute 
wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not 
only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause, pay ye tribute 
also, for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing." 

Here we are repuired to be subject to rulers ; to obey rulers : to 
obey the men in power, whatever they be, or whatever they may 
require. No limitations are fixed. The command is unlimited. The 
same unlimited obedience is commanded in other places. " Obey 
magistrates," says the Epistle to Titus. "Submit to every ordinance 
of man," says Peter. In none of these passages is any thing said to 
limit the duty of obedience to rulers. Every thing is added to ex- 
clude limitations. " There is no power but of God," says the writer. 
" The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, 
resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God : and they that 
resist shall receive to themselves damnation." In other words : to 
obey rulers, is to obey God ;— to disobey rulers, is to disobey God ; — 
to resist rulers, is to resist God ; — resistance to rulers, insubordination 
and disobedience to rulers, entails damnation. He adds other reasons 
for obedience. "Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil," 
says he. In other words : " They never forbid what is good ; they 
never command what is evil. They always forbid what is evil ; they 
always command what is good. They always punish evil ; they 
punish nothing else. They never punish what is good. Their laws 
are one with God's laws : their dispensation of rewards and punish- 
ments is one with God's. Besides, says this writer, " Do that which 
is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." The rulers will 
commend you, applaud you, if you do what is right. Not only will 
they be careful never to reprove you, censure you, reproach you, for 
doing what is good ; they will never fail to praise you. " But if thou 
doest evil," adds the writer, " be afraid, for he beareth not the sword 
in vain." You are sure to be punished by the rulers, if you do what is 
evil. And so the lesson goes on. Apply these words to any govern- 
ment in existence. Apply them to Russia, to Austria, to France. 
Apply them to the government of the Pope at Rome ; to the gov- 
ernment of the Queen, the aristocracy and the bishops in England, or 
to the government of the Southern Oligarchy in America. Do the 
words fit ? Are all these governments of God 1 Ought those who 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



05 



live under them to obey them in all things ? Would it be a damnable 
sin to disobey or resist them 1 Is it true that these governments are 
never a terror to good works, but always a terror to evil works % Is 
it true that every one who does what is good gets praise of them 1 
Are not all these things false, — utterly false ; false of every one of 
them 1 Could grosser falsehoods be uttered 1 Is it not a fact, that 
all these governments command things evil, and forbid things good ? 
Do they praise those who do good 1 Do they not, on the contrary, 
denounce their best and bravest men as rebels and traitors ? Do 
they not arrest, condemn, imprison, transport, and destroy such men? 
Do they not favour spies, traitors, false witnesses, and murderers ? 

Take the rulers of past ages. Take George the Third, and his 
Tory advisers. Were they a terror to evil doers ? Did they praise 
those who did good 1 Did they never encouiage the evil, and try to 
fiighten the good 1 Was it wrong to disobey them 1 Was it a sin 
to resist them ? In resisting those tyrants, were your fathers resist- 
ing the ordinance of God ? Are all your fathers damned ? Is Wash- 
ington damned 1 Are Franklin and Jefferson, Hancock and Adams, 
all damned ? 

Go back still further. Go to the days of Nero, who ruled when 
Paul is supposed to have died. Was he God's minister 1 Were all 
his subordinates God's ministers 1 Were his successors all ordained 
of God 1 Were none of them a terror to good works 1 Were they 
all a terror to evil works ? Did all who did that which was good 
obtain praise from them ? It seems a mockery to ask such questions. 
You know, that rulers are often a terror to the best works, and an 
encouragement to the worst. You know that they often decree ini- 
quity and cruelty, and forbid truth, beneficence and justice. You 
know that they frequently praise the bad, and censure the good ; that 
they often praise the worst, and banish, behead, or hang the best. 
You believe that resistance to rulers is, in some cases, obedience to 
God. You believe it was so in 1776. You do not believe that 
Hancock, and Adams, and Jefferson, and Washington, are all damned. 
You do not believe that all who laboured or fought with them are 
damned. You believe they were noble men. You believe that their 
resistance to the tyrant George the Third was obedience to God. You 
think they did well in resisting the tyrant ; yet you know they got no 
praise from him. 

And so in other cases. You are not convinced that Cromwell 
and Hampden, Milton and Sydney, are damned. You cannot believe 
that Kossuth and Mazzini deserve damnation, for their resistance to 
the political and ecclesiastical tyrants of Europe. The passages I have 
read are a mass of falsehood, abominations and horrors. More false, 
more blasphemous, more immoral, more revolting, more atrocious, 
more outrageous, more mischievous, or more monstrous doctrines, 
can neither be found nor feigned. (Time up.) 

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG. 

(General applause, a few hisses, followed by a second round of 
enthusiastic applause.) 

Moderator Chambers. — I hope that the Doctor's friends will not 
occupy his time. 



96 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



Dr. Berg. — If those on the other side want to hiss, let them go 
ahead. They will not annoy me in the least. 

It is hardly to be expected that X should notice the speech of my 
opponent, as though given us as sober argument. He is certainly gifted 
with wonderful powers of sophistry. I have heard many sophisms in 
my time, but I never heard any so palpable. Some parts of his 
speech sounded to me as if presented in joke. (Cries of question, 
question !) In what I said about the passage in Romans, T meant to 
call attention to the fact, that the word "Godhead 1 " is only used to 
denote the unity of God in contradistinction to polythesism, and does 
not include all his attributes. In his quotation of the hymn, he left 
out the part which speaks of the {i whole Deity," as revealed in his 
word. 

He spoke of the doctrine taught in Romans 13, in regard to rulers. 
J do not understand that passage as sanctioning all rulers and govern- 
ments, but as pointing out what rulers and governments should be. 
He means that Christians can righteously obey rulers that govern 
right, and honour those that are a terror to evil doers. Are not such 
rulers entitled to respect and confidence 1 Why should they not be 
obeyed ? Why should we rebel against those who execute wrath 
only upon him that doeth evil 1 

I wish to run over some of the arguments on the internal evidence, 
this evening, so that I may be able to present my respects to what my 
opponent said of Noah's Ark. Every individual who believes in 
God has derived that belief, directly, or indirectly from the Bible. 
There is nothing contrary to reason in the fact, that the Bible some- 
times represents God with human organs, passions and weakness. 
Human language must be used ; and it is feeble to express the 
Divine essence, which is infini'ly above the highest conceptions of the 
human mind. Infidels avail themselves of its imperfections, to abuse, 
tarnish and blaspheme the character of Jehovah. When the language 
is too lofty for their conceptions, they denounce it as mysterious and 
unintelligible ; when it is plain and simple, they discard it as un- 
worthy the character of God. Oh, if unbelievers would only lay hold 
really on God, they would feel his gentle but mighty power draw them 
from darkness into light ; they would feel the majesty of that Book, 
pervaded as it is by the Divine influence, impress their hearts ; they 
would feel the earnestness and grandeur of its truths ; they would be 
impressed with the fact that its utterance is divine, and that it teaches 
with an authority not like that of the Scribes and Pharisees. The 
idea that it is a human production involves a credulity that is without 
a parallel. We find within it sixty -six separate books : every de- 
partment of human knowledge is embraced — history, poetry, politics, 
the science of government, political economy, law, literature, religion, 
philosophy, art — all are treated of. The fundamental principles and 
the last results of science are assumed as axioms. Every subject is 
presented with concision, power and truth. This is incompatible 
with any other theory than that of its Divine origin. The principal 
writers are about thirty persons, coming from all classes, of all temp- 
eraments, of every age, mode of education, condition, and so forth. 
Among them were kings, priests, scholars, artists, generals, fishermen, 
tax-gatherers. Yet, notwithstanding all this diversity of authors, ex- 
tending through a period of sixteen centuries, and in spite of the 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



9 7 



scrutinizing, searching, unsparing and bitter examination to which these 
books have been subjected, they have stood the ordeal in a manner 
without a parallel in the history of literature ; not a single solecism 
has been found, nor a single discrepancy in morality, in statement or 
in doctrine. (General applause.) In face of all these proofs of its 
Divine origin, none but Infidel folly could blaspheme against this holy 
book. 

My opponent, in his laborious search for apparent contradiction? 
has raked a good many of them from the gutter, where past Infidel 
effusions have been thrown — has raked them out and set them before 
you. (Applause.) I do not wonder, my friends and my foes, that 
respectable papers have assailed me for taking*the position I have. I 
admit it to be scavenger work that I am doing. (Explosions of 
laughter and applause. A few hisses.) I am willing to be engaged 
in the meanest office of dumb and servile labours, if it will promote 
the cause of the Redeemer. (Talking by one of the audience, cries 
of turn him out, h'sh.) If any poor man wishes to talk, let him do 
so ; I will out-talk him, or do my best at it. 

I told you that the best evidence is where there is substantial 
agreement with circumstantial variety. This obviates all suspicion of 
collusion. One writer, in his description, will introduce a greater 
variety of details than another. But this does not affect the truth of 
any great transaction. Science has made wonderful advances since 
the days of Moses, but the early record is in harmony with every one 
of the discoveries of science. There is upon every page the indelible 
stamp of its Divine origin. We see in it the sublime endowments and 
awful intelligence of its Author. Under any theory attributing it to 
human invention, its character is absolutely incomprehensible. The 
Book of Job, which has been referred to as the work of a Pagan 
Deist, as is generally believed, or the Book of Proverbs, merely on 
the ground of literary merit, would immortalize the age producing it. 
The Book of Psalms, derided by Infidels as a collection of the religious 
odes of a half barbarous people, in its large views of the Divine 
character, its clear enunciations of truths, and exalted religious emotion, 
and in its lvric style, has never been equalled or even approached by 
any production of mere human genius. (Applause.) Is it not 
wonderful that a book written in the meagre language and style of an 
age long past, should, for its clear insight into the workings of the 
human heart, find expressions much more accurate than any my op- 
ponent, the Solomon of this age, can invent ? That was distinctly 
understood long ago, which we are now only finding out. The 
absolute results of modern science are assumed as axioms in those 
writings ; not as theorems to be demonstrated, or problems to be 
solved. The writers of those books knew more than we can yet com- 
prehend. The style is one of solemn gravity, in language of high 
intelligence, truths of high import. 

If ever Infidels are put to confusion, it is when they attack the 
Bible on grounds of science. Smatterers in science may think Infidels 
exhibit a proof of their profoundity, but men of superior knowledge 
are aware that every discovery of a new truth in science is but 
another star in that bright galaxy, which pours its flood of corrob- 
orative light upon the truth of the Divine origin of the Bible. 
(Applause.) 



9S 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



The objections made by my opponent have been successively over- 
thrown, buried beneath the wreck of their own fabric, overwhelmed 
in the rubbish, and consigned to the dust of infamy and merited 
contempt. 

Another point : the belief in the superintending providence of God 
is almost as wide as the belief in the existence of God. The Scrip- 
tures teach this truth with plainness ; history confirms it ; and it is 
in harmony with all the truths on which Providence rests the truth of 
his revealed word. The general laws of the moral government of the 
universe are inexplicable on any other supposition than that the Bible 
is from God. It commends itself to the intellect. The grand results 
of the world's experience are no where so well recorded as in God's 
book, written while the dew of the world's youth was fresh upon it. 

Leaving this train of general remark, I call attention to one point. 
The great central object of the New Testament is Jesus of Nazareth. 
If any one can view his character without admiration, his mind must 
be beclouded and his heart hard. How can any one, after contemp- 
lating his merits, and meditating upon his life, avoid exclaiming with 
the Eoman centurion, " Truly, this was the Son of God !" 

I had hoped to complete what I had to say on this head, but it 
would take me twenty minutes more. I have two or three minutes, 
which I will devote to my opponent's account of the creation. Where 
he got his knowledge, I know not. If he knows all about it, he is 
the wisest man I ever heard of. (Laughter.) Let us inquire what 
the Bible really says about it, not how this infidel interprets its 
language. (Laughter.) If any one imagines that the Bible says the 
world is just 5850 years old, he is grievously mistaken. It says : — 

<e In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." 

Will he be good enough to tell us when this beginning was ? (Loud 
applause.) 

" And the earth was without form, and void : and darkness vras upon the 
face of the deep : and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." 

Will he tell us how long the earth was without form, and void ? 
(Laughter.) Will he tell us how long darkness was upon the face 
of the deep ? (Laughter.) 

"And God said, Let there be light : and there was light." 

Will he tell us how long the light existed 1 " And the spirit of 
God moved upon the face of the waters !" Yes : Geology brings to 
light the fact, that the first animals on the globe were aquatic animals, 
thus confirming the fact asserted by the Scriptures. 

(Time expired. Loud and long applause. The audience then dis- 
persed quietly.) 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



FIFTH EVENING. 

[At six o'clock, the Hall was nearly full. The people were quiet 
and orderly, being evidently inclined to leave the debate to the 
champions,] 

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER, 

(Profound silence.) It seems necessary to state once more what is 
the point under discussion, and what it is not. 

1. The question, then, at present under discussion, is the origin of 
the Bible. Our opponent says, it is of Divine origin ; we contend 
that it is of human origin. This is all that we contend for at present. 
Mark ! we do not contend that the Bible is wholly false or evil, but 
simply, that it is imperfect — of a mixed character, partly true and 
partly false — partly good and partly bad, like other human books. 
To prove that it is of Divine origin — that it is inspired, in the Orthodox 
sense of the word — the book must be proved to be all true, all good, 
without admixture of evil. On the contrary, to prove that it is of 
human origin, it is enough to prove that its contents are of a mixed 
character, 

2. We have no wish to destroy the Bible, or to prevent people 
from reading it ; we simply wish to show men that he book is not 
of divine authority ; that they are never to believe what it says, unless 
it looks like truth ; or to do what it bids them, unless they think it 
would be best to do so. We wish them to know that they have a 
right, that it is proper, and that it is necessary, they should use the 
same liberty with the Bible that they do with the works of Newton, 
Locke, Milton, Dryden, Pope, Webster, taking all that looks like 
truth, and that favours goodness, and leaving all that looks like false- 
hood or that seems to favour evil. 

3. We have no wish to destroy the Bible, any more than we wish 
to destroy the Koran, or the Greek and Roman classics ; we would 
have them all preserved. They are interesting and useful. They 
reveal to us the thoughts, the customs, the characters of past genera- 
tions. They show us where the race of man once stood in politics, 
religion, philosophy and manners, and thus afford us an opportunity 
of comparing the world as it now is, with the world as it was long 
ago, and of finding out what progress it has made. Even the errors 
and follies, the crimes and cruelties, the impieties and blasphemies, 
the immoralities and obscenities, the contradictions and inconsis:en- 
cies, the fables and the forgeries of those ancient books, are all of use, 
when regarded simply as monuments of antiquity, as revelations — 
not of the mind and will of God — but of the ignorance, and rude- 
ness, and depravity of childish, savage, or half-barbarous times. 

4. But those ancient books have much in them that is beautiful, 
tender, good. They have touching stories, beautiful fables, excellent 
poetry, noble sentiments, powerful eloquence, calculated to arouse and 
excite the mind, and promote our intellectual and moral development. 
The man who regards the Bible as a human production, may read 
it with as much pleasure, and study it with as much profit, as he 



100 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



who regards it as a divine production. Nay, more. He can take all 
the good, and yet feel free to reject the bad. He can admire and 
love the beautiful, without feeling obliged to forge new rules of in- 
terpretation, and do violence to his common sense and conscience, in 
order to explain away the false, the foolish, the immoral, and the 
blasphemous portions, or to reconcile historical, theological, and moral 
contradictions. 

5. Our opponents say, we reject the divine authority of the Bible, 
because its doctrines and precepts are so decidedly against all vicious 
indulgences. The contrary, however, is the truth. One of the 
reason? why we reject the divine authority of the Bible is, that i's 
doctrines and precepts are too favourable to evil. If we wish to lie, 
and steal, and commit murder, or to kidnap and enslave our fellow- 
men, or to have a plurality of wives and a number of concubines, and 
to justify ourselves in doing so, where could we find a book better 
suited to our purpose than the book which tells us that men who in- 
dulge in all these vices were the friends of God, men after God's 
own heart, and declared by God himself to be the best and wisest 
men that ever lived ? No, fiiends, the morality of the Bible is too 
lax. Even the morality of the New Testament, though often un- 
natural and extravagant, is not so strict, so pure, so perfect, as it 
should be. The morality of the New Testament, and even portions 
of the Old Testament, is better, purer, far better and purer than the 
morality of the Orthodox priesthoods and churches of the day, 
whether Popish or Protestant ; but it is not half so pure, so perfect, 
as the morality of humanity — the morality of what is foolishly and 
falsely called Infidelity. Our morality, our law, allows no crime — • 
tolerates no neglect of duty —provides for us no indulgences, no sub- 
stitutionary victim, no borrowed garments of another's righteousness. 
It requires unchanging fidelity to duty, or comptls us to endure the 
penalty in full, without the least abatement. 

6. We say the molality of certain portions of the Bible is better 
than the morality of the Orthodox churches and priesthoods. We go 
further. In some of the Psalms and some of the Proverbs, in portions 
of the book of Job, and in the writings of some of the prophets, we 
meet with passages so beautiful, so pure, so tender, and some so full 
of the spirit of humanity and philanthropy, that to admire them too 
much, or to prize them too highly, seems almost impossible. Happy 
would it be for the world if the churches and priesthoods would read 
and study them, and begin to reduce them to practice. In the 
Gospels and the Epistles, too, we find passages on charity and 
beneficence, on temperance and purity, on the subjugation of the 
animal part of our nature to the intellectual and the moral, — passages 
on the duty of employing our talents and resources for the good of 
our fellow-men, and on our obligations to live and labour for the 
regeneration and &alvation of our race, which, when, favoured with 
that liberal interpretation which the enlightened philanthropy of 
modern heresy sometimes gives them, are really excellent. We find 
much, also, in the examples of Jesus and Paul, and some of their 
early followers, as presented in portions of the New Testament, well 
worthy of admiration and imitation. All these things we prize and 
cherish. We wish both to practise them ourselves, and to bring all 
others to practise them. But when you have brought together every 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



101 



beautiful and valuable passage in the whole book, you have nothing 
like a perfect rule of life. You must look elsewhere, if you want to 
be furnished to every good work. You must study the human 
system — you must read the laws which are written on your organi- 
zation, and the laws inscribed on the world around you, if you would 
learn your duty fully. In short, you must know the laws of your own 
being, and understand your relations to your fellow-creatures and to 
the world of things around you, if you would either know in which 
way you ought to go, or be supplied with sufficiently powerful 
motives to induce you to walk in that way. 

Besides, the good parts of the Bible are so mixed up with inferior 
materials — the moral sentiments are so blended with low and selfish, 
with superstitious, and unnatural, with illiberal and cruel, with blasphe- 
mous and inhuman doctrines, and so obscured with bad examples and 
immoral fables, that it requires a man of superior intelligence and 
moral powers to separate the good from the bad. 

We have, however, no more sympathy with the pretended 
rationalist, who quarrels with the Bible on account of the good that 
is in it, than we have with the proud pretenders to superior piety, 
who make use of the Bible as a means of blinding and misleading 
their brethern, and raising themselves to wealth and power, at the ex- 
pence of their less crafty and more credulous neighbours. 

We have shown that, though the Bible contains much that is good, 
there is nothing in it to prove that any portion of it is of superhuman 
origin ; much less is there any thing in the Bible to prove the whole 
of the book divine. Even the best parts are no more than the natural 
utterances of the human heart; while other parts bear" marks of 
having come from rude, uncultivated, ignorant, and barbarous portions 
of our race. 

We have shown, that all Bibles in existence, whether called transla- 
tions or originals, whether printed or manuscript, abound with con- 
tradictions, immoralities, blasphemies, and faults and errors of every 
kind. 

We have shown, that the Bible in common use, (and it is as good 
as the Greek and Hebrew Bibles, and, in some respects, much 
better,) attributes to God the weaknesses and imperfections of 
humanity. 

That it charges him with infinite injustice, and with horribl ecruelties. 

That it respresents him as the patron of vice, and the special friend 
of enormous, prodigious criminals. 

That it sanctions the grossest and most atrocious crimes, such as 
lying, theft, and murder ; adultery, polygamy, and concubinage ; kid- 
napping, slaveholding, and retail and wholesale slaughter ; the 
slaughter of the innocent ; the slaughter of the helpless women and 
chidren ; the slaughter at one time of thousands and tens of thousands 
of mothers and their children, in cold blood. We have shown that 
it sanctions every form of despotism, both in the State, Church, and 
the family. We have shown that it abounds in contradictions ; con- 
tradictions in theology ; contradictions in history j contradictions of 
the most palpable and irreconcileable character. We have shown 
that it tells the most unphilosophical and childish accounts of the 
creation and the early history of our race ; and we may add, now, 
that there is no kind of error or defect, to which the literary pro- 



102 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



ductions of men are liable, which may not be found in the Bible. It 
has errors of style, and errors of sentiment. Tt has errors in gram- 
mar, errors in rhetoric, errors in logic. It has geological and 
astronomical errors, meteorological and geographical errors ; historical 
and biographical errors ; errors botanical and zoological : chemical 
and physiological ; chronological and arithmetical ; medical, moral, 
and prophetical. 

Every charge which we have made in former speeches, we have 
proved by unanswered and unanswerable arguments. (Storm of 
hisses ; cries of fair play ! Moderater, let him go on.) I suppose 
none of you think your hisses and cries are any answer to my argu- 
ments. The answer must come from my opponent. (Renewed 
hisses.) 

Moderator Illman. — All we ask of you, gentlemen, is, to grant us 
an impartial hearing. 

Moderator Chambers. — -I do beseech the audience to grant what 
they ask — it is but fair play. 

Not one of our statements has been lefuted ; not one of our objec- 
tions has been answered. 

No answer can be given to our arguments, which would not as 
easily justify any other book, however bad or obscene. There is no 
book that I have ever had the opportunity of seeing, that contains 
anything worse than what is found in the Bible. There is no book — 

1. That contains more glaring or more palpable contradictions. 

2. There is none that contains more blasphemous representations 
of God. 

3. There is none that contains things more indecent or obscene. 

4. There is no book that contains things more unphilosophical. 

5. There is no book that contains more immoral doctrines and 
examples. 

6. There is none that contains more foolish or childish precepts 
and stories. 

So, that if it can be justified, any other book can. 

If the Bible can be proved divine, any book can be proved divine. 

What has my opponent done all this while ? 

He has not even defined his terms, or explained the propositions 
he has undertaken to prove. He has to prove the divine inspiration 
of the Bible ; but, 

V. He has never told us what he means by divine inspiration. 

2. He has never told us what is necessary to prove the divine in- 
spiration of a book. 

3. He began an argument on the necessity of a divine revelation ; 
but suppose the necessity of a divine revelation proved, it would be 
no proof of the divine inspiration of the Bible, nor of any other book. 

4. The Doctor gave us a long discourse, professedly on internal 
evidence ; but, first, he gave us no definition of internal evidence, 
and he gave us no proof whatever that what he adduced under the 
head was internal evidence, or any evidence at all, of the divine in- 
spiration of the Bible. 

5. But, stranger still, the statements of which his address on in- 
ternal evidence consisted, were bare assertions, utterly unsupported. 
He said the Bible stood a'one in point of style, but he offered no 
proof of the statement. 

He said the Bible was in harmony with all the discoveries of science. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



108 



but he neither proved that it was, nor did he prove to us that, sup- 
posing it to be so, it would afford anv proof of the superhuman origin 
of the Bible. The Doctor, therefore, has not advanced one single 
argument in proof of his position. He has his work, as the advocate 
of the divine inspiration of the Bible, to begin. 

6. This is not all. We have given proof that the Bible is not of 
divine origin, that it is of purely human origin, that it bears all possible 
marks of having been composed and compiled by men, who were 
not only as liable to error as other men, but, to some extent, by men 
who were more ignorant, more under the dominion of error, than 
many other writers, whose works have come down to us from antiquity. 

My opponent says the laws of Divine Providence, or the laws by 
which the world is governed, are given in the Bible, with a precision 
unequalled. We however, cannot find them in the Bible at all. 

The representations given in the Bible of the laws by which God 
governs the world, and the manifestations of those laws in the world, 
are flatly contradictory. The real laws of the universe, and the re 
presentations given of God's laws and doings in the Bible, are directly 
opposed to each other. 

There are a few things in the Doctor's speeches which I would 
notice. 

He says that the seven sons of Saul were hung up by way of 
righteous retribution for the murder committed by their father. Strange 
retribution, to execute one man for the crime of another ! Suppose 
that our government should act upon this principle, permit thieves 
and murderers to escape with impunity, and after they were dead, 
should hang up their innocent sons and grandsons ! ! Should we call 
it righteous retribution then P What a perversion of the moral sense 
there must be to attribute such atrocities to the Divine Being ! It is 
an abuse of words to call such atrocities retribution. But the Doctor 
tells us that God is sovereign, and can do as he pleases. We do not 
deny that God is a sovereign, but a sovereign has no more right to do 
wrong than other people. He cannot abuse his power, and commit 
atrocities at pleasure. 

But the same principle is carried out in Nature, we are told. The 
drunkard and sensualist entail disease upon their posterity, it is said. 
Yes, but is God answerable for the doings of drunkards and sen- 
sualists ? It is blasphemy to charge them upon God. As well may 
we charge him with the sins of all men. The drunkard is as reaily 
the cause of the disease which he transmits to his children, as the 
murderer is the cause of the death of his victim. The crime does 
not cease to be mine, because I commit it on the babe before it is 
born. Give God the credit of his beneficent laws, but do not charge 
Him with men's violations of those laws. 

The Doctor says, God's ways will not square with our ideas of 
justice. Portions of the Bible say they 20 ill. The Bible itself says, 
" He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, 
are both an abomination to the Lord." Prov. 17 : 15. 

The Doctor charged the anonymous letter he read on some unbe- 
liever. I should have given it a different parentage. However, it 
had nothing to do with the question. 

As to capital punishments, I suppose he may find persons opposed 
to them among Christians, as well as among others. 



104 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLK. 



As to those who pity the murderer, instead of pitying the mur- 
dered if there be such people, we should likefthem no better than our 
opponent does. 

Our view of punishment is this, that it should be adapted to secure 
society ; and, secondly, to reform, if possible, the criminal. We 
question the wisdom of cherishing revenge. 

We would kill a man without hesitation who should attempt to 
murder another, if we could not otherwise prevent the murder ; but 
when we had got the murderer safe in our hands, we should feel it 
a violation of the law of God, in our nature, to kill him in cool blood. 

The Doctor asks, What is a man to do if the light within him be- 
comes darkness 1 We answer, What can be done in the case of a 
man who turns the Gospel into a patron of licentiousness ? They 
must both take the consequences. 

But where there is no law, there is no transgression, says the Doc- 
tor. But in the case supposed, there is a law, only the man refuses 
to read and obey it. 

Dr. Berg said I made complaints against the doctrines of Jehovah. 
I only complained against those who attribute to Jehovah ordinances 
which are not his. 

The Doctor says, if I will account for the introduction of death 
into the world, he will thank me. But we had better have no account 
of the matter at all, than one which is manifestly false and blas- 
phemous. 

At the close of his last speech, the Doctor took up the account of 
the creation in Genesis, and says that the Bible does not teach that 
the world is 5850 years old ; that it does not say that the world was 
mwde in six days, but "in the beginning ;" and he asked me with a 
triumphant air, to tell him when that beginning was, intimating that 
it endured endless ages. He and his friends seemed to think his 
retort a triumph. We answer, the Bible expressly teaches that the 
" beginning," when the heavens and the earth were made, was a part 
of the six days. This is plainly the meaning of the passage in 
Genesis. Other passages, however, are more explicit still. Look at 
Exodus 20 : 9, 1 1 : — 

"Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work For in six days the 

Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the 
seventh day ; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." 

And again, look at Exodus 31 : 17 : — - 

" It (the Sabbath) is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever ; 
for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and, on the seventh day, he 
rested, and was refreshed." 

Bef >re these authorities, the Doctor's triumph comes to a close. 
The Bible itself, his pretended infallible book, declares that his inter- 
pretation is wrong. [Interruption by cries of time, time.] Not one 
of the statements he has made in favour of the Bible has been proved — 
not one of those which we have made has been refuted. [Cries of 
time.] Mr. Barker turned to Moderators, who decided that only a 
few moments remained. No allowance had been made for time lost 
in interruption. [Cries of Berg, Berg.] 



> 

REMARKS OF DR BKKO. 105 



REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG. 

(Two rounds of applause and cheers.) With your permission, I 
will now notice my opponent's speech of last Friday evening, and will 
endeavour to straighten matters with him in this casting up of accounts. 

He said, on Friday, that the name of the Supreme Being, whose 
existence he recognises, is God ; need I remind him that this is a 
generic term, abstract instead of concrete ? Suppose I should ask him 
his name, and he should answer me, Mankind ? would the reply be 
sufficient ? Every man has his own individual name, and the heathen 
gave names to each of their gods ; why cannot he, therefore, name 
his ? My God, the God that Christians worship, has revealed his 
title — it is Jehovah, and he says, " Beside me there is no other !" 
It is true that the " heavens declare his gloiy, and the firmament 
showeth his handiwork," but do they reveal all the attributes of God 1 
It is true that the planets show his glory — 

" For ever singing, as they shine, 
The hand that made us divine." 

But they do not reveal all his attributes. God manifests not only in 
nature, but in grace, and in his son Jesus Christ, his three-fold character. 
It is our God who has made the heavens with its glory ; it is he who 
has stretched out the sea ; and it is he who hath clothed the dry land 
with its various beauty. Let not my opponent confound his nameless 
God with' ours, Who is his God ? Where is he ? If my opponent 
will not answer, I will undertake to do it. 

He says that Job -was a Pagan Deist. Inimitable discovery ! 
How, then, is it that he has written an epic poem, which for sublimity 
of thought, grandeur of expression, transcendant pathos and beamiful 
imagery, surpasses every work of merely human genius ? Job a Pagan 
Deist ! How happens it, then, that he has put on record those beau- 
tiful words, which my opponent and myself have so often heard re- 
peated by the dying Christian ; — " For I know that my Redeemer 
liveth ; and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth." 
Job 19 : 25, 26. No. Job was neither a Pagan Dtist, nor an Infi- 
del Deist. (Slight applause.) He was a humble believer in Christ. 
And now, mark ! the oldest book extant was written by a man who 
believed in the coming of the Messiah. Herein it is a clear enuncia- 
tion of the Son of God. Upon its pages is stamped the seal of Divine 
Intelligence, to prove, in the face of all who reject, that the Bible is 
indeed the Book of God. 

My opponent offered an elaborate eulogy on Thomas Paine. It 
was in sad contrast with his encomiums on the Bible, but worthy of 
the sinking cause which my opponent is endeavouring to save from 
merited perdition. Thomas Paine, the loathsome drunkard, the fil- 
thy debauchee, who covered all things holy with the slime of his 
railings, has found a eulogist. My opponent has abandoned his de- 
famings of the Scriptures for the purpose of extolling as base a mis- 
creant as ever upheld the flagstaff of Infidelity. (Applause, hisses — 
renewed applause and cheers.) My opponent says that Paine is 
slandered ; that the record of his dying moments is a perversion of 
the truth. Was h« there ? If not, what right has he to contradict 



106 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE 



those who were, and who are quite as worthy of credit as he ever 
can be ? 

Mr. Barker descanted on the horrors of hell into which the Bible 
says, " the wicked shall be turned, and all the nations that forget 
God." He represents Christians as believing that the vast majority 
of mankind will be condemned to intolerable torment. Christians 
believe no such doctrine. The vast majority of mankind die in infan- 
cy. It is true, that all men are by nature the children of wrath ; but 
if the child is a partaker of the condemnation by Adam, he is also a 
partaker of the salvation by Christ ; and it is written that of such is 
the kingdom of heaven. But it is true that the wicked shall be turn- 
ed into hell. Jehovah is the God of love ; and he says that heaven 
shall not be polluted by those who are defiled with guilt ; but that all 
the blessed will be there in washed robes. What father would bring 
the plague of leprosy into his family, and make of his home a Lazar- 
etto ? into the portals of heaven, sin and death cannot enter ; and, 
therefore, the sinner who rejects God and despises Christ cannot en- 
ter. Hell is the moral lazar-house of the universe. My opponent 
says that God never forgives sin. I say, out of Christ, never — out 
of him there is no Saviour, no heaven, no cross, no crown. What he 
says is horrible. Does my opponent expect God to measure His ha- 
tred of sin by his love of sin ? " God so loved the world, that he 
gave his only begotten Son " to take away the sin of the world. And 
the banishment of sinners suffices to set before the universe, the tre- 
mendous truth, that men cannot defy Him, and trample on the cross, 
with impunity. 

My opponent speaks of the Saviour which every man has within 
himself. He says that a cut finger will heal, and gives you other in- 
stances of the recuperative energy of Nature. But how does the soul 
show it has the same ? Does it bleed ? No. Conscience will resent 
the wrong. A thief picks your pocket ; his conscience troubles him, 
and all is right. He keeps your money, because, forsooth, he has a 
Saviour within himself. (Laughter and applause.) Suppose his con- 
science is seared, he still has his Saviour within himself, and your 
money too. He says that the penalty ot the sting of conscience is one 
part of the moral law. How long will this sting last ? Until the sin 
be healed. Then must conscience for ever sting : and as all men 
have sinned, my opponent's argument is a strong one in favour of an 
eternal hell. 

My opponent says that knowledge is progressive. How, then, did 
the Jews do what he charges them with — borrow from the Pagans, 
who lived before them ? If the law of progress was universal, the 
Malays would not have remained in the same condition for centuries, 
while the Sandwich Islanders have advanced in civilization. He 
should blush at the absurdity of his assertion. (Tremendous applause.) 

He speaks of the account of Abraham, who had a child born to him 
in his old age. His objection is feeble as infant silliness can make it, 
for God is Almighty, and if he had chosen, he could, out of the very 
stones of the street, have raised up children unto Abraham. 

One more remark, and I come to the matter of the ark. I had 
hoped to have the happiness of congratulating my opponent on making 
one speech without referring to Solomon's seven hundred wives and 
three hundred concubines ; and in his last, I thought he would keep 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



10? 



clear of if, and in fact, he only squinted at it. (Laughter and applause ) 
He reminds me of the scotch parson, who could never preach a single 
sermon without some allusion to Uriah, the Hittite. Once the elders 
of his church, wishing to cure him of the habit, called on him, and 
begged him to abstain, and he promised he would. In his next ser- 
mon, he got along pretty well until near the close, when he could not 
refrain from breaking out with, " And now, brithers, ye'll bear in mind 
the case of Bathshe — och, it's all out." (Laughter and applause.) 
The case of David offers no difficulty. He not only sinned in the 
matter of Uriah, the Hittite, but he himself confesses that his iniqui- 
ties were more than he could number. We should interpret the 
Bible as a whole. Its author has given us reason to be exercised. 

Like all men, he fell short, and needed forgiveness ; and the sin in 
the case of Uriah is the only one mentioned, because that sin left 
the stain of infamy upon his reign, and descended to his posterity. 
My opponent may say it is unjust to visit the &in of the fathers upon 
the children, but the fact is so, and he may settle its injustice with 
his nameless God. I could not but observe how his rank atheistical 
doctrine glided again into my opponent's speech. He says that the 
disease of the drunkard's child is not owing to God, but to the crime 
of the drunkard. Who instituted the law by which the drunkard does 
entail disease upon his children 1 (Loud applause.) My opponent 
is like th<; Hindoo, who thinks the world rests on the back of an ele- 
phant, and the elephant upon a tortoise. He may settle the princi- 
ple with his God, and when he makes the fact square with his sense 
of justice, he will get along. Of one thing we are sure, God's ways 
are not as Mr. Barker's ways, and his thoughts are not as Mr. Bar- 
ker's thoughts ; and I suspect that Mr. Barker's admiration is not at 
all essential to His government or happiness. (Applause.) And now 
as to the ark. I must express my surp:ise at the want of fairness 
shown by Mr. Barker, in his statements ; the exposure of which, he 
must have known, would consign him to merciless ridicule and con- 
tempt. I will undertake to prove that the ark was not oniy large 
enough and to spare, to accommodate all the animals mentioned, but 
also my opponent and all the members of the Sunday Institute into 
the bargain ; (laughter, and vocirerous applause, and a few hisses) — 
though I rather suppose that my opponent and his friends, if they had 
lived in that day, would have been outsiders. (Tremendous cheering.) 
I might insist on taking the Egyptian cubit as the standard of measure- 
ment, but I will accept that of my opponent. The ark, then, was 
450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, giving a capacity of 
1,518,750 cubic feet. This would make a vessel, if we take the mod- 
ern mode of measuring, of 43,413 tons. Now, if we remember that 
a first-rate man-of-war is only of between 2,200 and 2,300 tons, the 
ark would have had the capacity of storeage of 18"ships-of-the-line 7 
each of them capable of containing 20,000, with sufficient provision 
for six months' consumption, besides an enormous weight ofcannon. 
My opponent said that there were 500,000 species of animals, to each 
of which he supposed that one cubic yard should be assigned. Iknow 
not which most to admire, his estimate of your credulity, or the cour- 
age he shows in coming before such an intelligent audience as this with 
such an assertion. BufTon says there are only from 200 to 250 spe- 
cks of animals, from the mouse to the elephant. Cuvier, who has 



108 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



been quoted, includes fishes in his estimate. Well, we may as well 
heave them overboard, for they will live quite as well in the water as 
in Noah's ark. (Laughter.) 

We may dispose in the same way of the amphibious animals, who 
could find a floating log or tree to rest upon. (Laughter.) All the 
animals we care for, are those inhabiting dry land. We have thus 
part of Mr. Barker's cargo out, as not included among the beasts, 
fowls and creeping things of the original invoice. He wished to allow 
a cubic yard apiece to each one of his half million of species. Why, 
a pair of turkeys would live with comfort in that space, but the 
creeping things form considerable items in the bill of lading ; and the 
curious in such matters, know that whole regiments of creeping things 
can be accommodated in very circumscribed limits. (Laughter and 
cheers.) Just think of allowing a cubic yard to insects not discovera- 
ble without grandmother's spectacles. (Laughter.) 

The large animals are very small in number, and the small animals 
were an immense number. We have, for this calculation, taken our 
opponent's own standard, but we might have taken the Egyptian 
measure, which would give us 2,243,521 cubic feet. This would 
give us large space, not only for the animals, but for provender for a 
year or eighteen months. My opponent spoke as if there was but one 
window, and that only a cubit wide. Indeed ! Where did he learn 
this ? Did he consult the spirits ? He quoted the Bible, but even 
that can be quoted not exactly in its right sense. What does it say ? 

"A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it 
above ; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof ; with lower, 
second, and third stories shalt thou make it." Gen. 6:16. 

The word window is used to signify a means of admitting light. At 
the top it was reduced to a cubit in size. It was in the roof of the 
ark, in which was set this transculency or transparency, — Time up. 
Dr. Berg^sat down amid tremendous cheering. 

KEMAEKS OF JOSEPH BAEKER. 

(Slight applause, hisses.) A curious place, truly, to put a window — 
in the roof ! a three storied ark, ventilated by a roof skylight ! Through 
this, the eight persons were to throw all the filth made by half a 
million of animals : through this, lay the road for water, not only for 
drinking, but for making all clean. A curious explanation, truly ! 
Besides if you should ask any farmer accustomed to keeping cattle, 
whether, in a barn one hundred and fifty yards long, twenty- five wide, 
and fifteen deep, or in one of the dimensions claimed by my opponent 
he could winter seven pairs of every species of fowl and clean beast, 
and two pairs of every unclean beast, adding other beasts in sufficient 
number for the sustenance of the carnivorous animals, and have room 
to stow away enough grain, grass, and other kinds of food for the rest 
he would laugh at you And the wintering would be for four or five 
months only, and not for twelve or eighteen. He would laugh more, 
should vou ask him whether Noah, with his wife and three sons, and 
their wives, could tend all these animals, clean the ark, and keep the 
air pure, and the ark well ventilated, by means of one window, and 
that a roof skylight— the worst place possible for the purposes of ven- 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



109 



tilation. For the number of species of animals, my opponent quotes 
Buffon, an out-of-date author, who wrote before zoology had taken 
its present scientific form. He spoke, also, of Cuvier as an authority 
of mine. I never referred to Cuvier. I quoted from Professor 
Hitchcock, a distinguished geologist of your own country, and Presi- 
dent of one of its leading colleges. I will again read the passages :— 

"The first difficulty ia the way of supposing the flood to have been literally 
universal, is the great quantity of water that would have been requisite. The 
amount necessary to cover the earth to the tops of the highest mountains, or 
about five miles above the present oceans, would be eight times greater than 
that existing on the globe at this time. 

" A second objection to such a universality is, the difficulty of providing for 
the animals in the ark. Calculations have, indeed, been made, which seemed 
to show that the ark was capacious enough to hold the pairs and septuples 
of the species. But, unfortunately, the number of species assumed to exist, 
by the calculators was vastly below the truth. It amounted only to three or 
four hundred; whereas, the actual number already described by zoologists, is 
no less than one hundred and fifty thousand ; and the probable number ex- 
isting on the globe is not less than half a million. And, for the greater part 
of these, must provision have been made, since most of them inhabit either 
the air or the dry land. A thousand species of mammalia, six thousand 
species of birds, two thousand species of reptile, and one hundred and twenty 
thousand species of insects, are already described, and must have been pro- 
vided with space and food. Will any one believe this possible, in a vessel not 
more than four hundred and fifty feet long, seventy five feet broad, and forty- 
five feet high. 

The third and most important objection to the universality of the Deluge 
is derived from the facts brought to light by modern science, respecting the 
distribution of animals and plants on the globe. * * * If tropical animals 
and plants, for instance, were to migrate to the temperate zone, and especially 
to the frigid regions, they could not long survive ; and almost equally fatal 
would it be for the animals and plants of high latitude to take up their abode 
near the equator. - * * * Now, suppose the animals of the torrid zone at 
the present day to attempt, by natural means, to reach the temperate zone, 
who does not know that nearly all of them must perish?" — President Hitch- 
cock's " Religion of Geology," pp. 128 — 131. 

Why, the food requisite for the graminivorous animals alone, for 
eighteen months, would have filled the ark. And of this, much would 
have had to be preserved green for the insects. The sheep necessary 
for a single pair of lions would have occupied no inconsiderable space ; 
and the sheep, in their turn, would have needed large quantities of 
fodder. Besides, all these animials could not be packed like bales of 
cotton. Those who tended them needed room to get about the stalls 
for the purpose of cleaning, feeding, and watering them ; as well as 
room to- pass up and down stairs. If, too, they had to go up stairs 
for water, if they had carry up stairs all the refuse, we cannot help 
thinking what a getting up stairs there must have been. (Laughter.) 

My opponent's talk about the ark carrying 43,413 tons, is simply 
ridiculous. However well built, it could not, with its dimensions, 
have carried, in a universal deluge, much more than a tenth of the 
burden. Suppose the window in the roof, where would they have 
got fresh air while the rain was pouring down through the windows of 
heaven ? How would eight people manage so large a vessel, besides 
tending so large a number of animals ? Again : the small animals 
would want separate accommodation, and room above would be 
needed. Many of the larger animals would require from one to ten 
thousand feet each, Even a house of the dimensions given would 
not hold a tenth even of the mammalia and birds alone, with food for 



110 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



thirteen or eighteen months, to say nothing of the creeping things, 
Six thousand species of birds have already deen described. Of each 
of these, seven pairs were to be preserved. This would make eighty- 
four thousand birds. We have next, a thousand species of 
mammalia described. There would have to be room in the ark 
for about three thousand. The number existing, however, would 
probably be three times as great. It is monstrous to talk of such a 
multitude being accommodated in a floating vessel of such dimensions. 
One fiftieth past could not be accommodated and supplied with food 
in such a vessel. The impossibilites implied in the story are almost 
innumerable. 

The Doctor asked me the name of the God T worship. I told him 
God. To this he objects, that this term is generic — that an indi- 
vidual, when asked his name, does not answer by calling himself 
"mankind," but must give the name which distinguishes him from 
other men. Now, T was not aware that there were so many Gods ; 
I thought there was but one Gnd. Men need different names, be- 
cause they are many ; but there is only one God, and He needs but 
one name. The Doctor says that his God made the heavens, and 
asks me what mine has done. I am happy that for once we are 
agreed ; for that is my God, too. 

He speaks of the beautiful passage in Job, " I know that my Re- 
deemer liveth." &c. The best commentators agree that the sense 
given by him to the passage has no authority in the original text ; but 
in the translation only. 

He says that Paine was a loathsome drunkard and filthy debauchee, 
and alleges that I said the account he read of Paine's last moments 
was untrue. What I said was, the account sounded to me like a 
slander — that the clergy ever stood ready to belie every reformer — 
that I knew they had belied his writings, and supposed they had done 
the same by his private character. I know, by experience, how 
eager, unscrupulous and reckless, Christians are in slandeiing un- 
believers. A Christian lady, who has attended this debate, said I had 
come upon the platform half drunk. Now, I have not taken a glass 
of intoxicating drink for nineteen years. A minister in one of your 
pulpits charged me with something much worse than this. His 
brethren have heaped upon me a thousand slanders. If they will say 
these things of living men, who can answer for themselves, what will 
they not say of dead men, who have no power to defend themselves ? 
All manner of evil is said about every one identified with an un- 
popular movement. If the chief priests called Jesus a devil and the 
prince of devils, surely no other reformer can expect to be exempted 
from such abuse. 

The Doctor informs us that few only are lost — that the vast ma- 
jority of the human family are saved. My answer shall be in the 
words of Christ : — " Wide is the gate and broad is the way that 
leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat. Because 
straight is the gate and narrow the way which leadeth unto life, and 
few there be that find it." Now, if " many" be more than " few," 
the Bible is on my side. 

He says that children are taken into heaven ; but the passage he 
refers to for proof says no such thing, but only that heave^h is com- 
posed of people like little children. 



REMARKS OF JOSEni BARKER. 



Ill 



He speaks of "my love of vice." This requires no answer. I 
suppose my character will bear comparison with the character of the 
best in the Church or the priesthood. 

He ridiculed the inner light, and says, if a thief picked your pocket, 
his conscience troubles him a moment, and all is right. This is not 
our doctrine. Man's nature will not be satisfied, — the wound will 
not be healed, — till the evil-doer has tried to undo the wrong. But 
are they the men who follow the inner light that pick your pockets ? 
Are they the men who study the laws of their being, and labour to 
follow them ? Were the early Quakers addicted to pocket-picking '? 
Was William Penn celebrated for pocket-picking 1 Was George 
Fox 1 The Orthodox picked the Quaker's pockets, and robbed them 
of their liberty, and life besides ; but when did these followers of 
the inner light retaliate % (Applause, hisses, one hiss from the 
platform.) 

But if a man has no conscience ? asks my opponent. We answer, 
if a man has no conscience, what can the Bible do for him 1 But 
there are no such men. There are men whose consciences have 
been perverted by false theologies and moralities ; but none are born 
without. Our law teaches to develope conscience, and all the moral 
and intellectual powers and impulses. It is a fact that unbelievers 
are generally more conscientious than believers. What men have most 
credit in the market or on 'change 1 The very pious, or the men 
who make no pretensions to piety 1 

My opponent still talks of his eternal hell, as if a father could not 
be satisfied with the improvement or amendment of his children, but 
must torture them for ever, without regard to their amendment. This 
Orthodox theology is a blinding and a brutifying power. Again : 
those who follow the inner light, or unbelievers, are not only the most 
upright and honest men, but the most philanthropic and reformatory. 
Who are every where the men of progress ? Those called infidels. 
Who are every where the conservatives 1 The priests. Wherever 
so-called Infidels have been most numerous, progress has been most 
rapid and general ; wherever priests have been in power, it has been 
slowest. Which was the friend of truth, of science, and of man, 
Galileo, who proclaimed the time system of the universe, in defiance 
of the Bible ; or the Pope and his Bible-believing cardinals, who 
thrust him into prison, and kept him there, in darkness and misery, 
till his health and spirits failed ? And who are now the reformers, 
the men of progress 1 The men who toil for science, — who study 
Nature, — who respect her oracles, — are chiefly unbelievers ; while 
the men who frown on science, — who denounce the revelations of 
Nature as Infidelity, — who frown on geologists, naturalists and phy- 
siologist, are the worshippers of the Bible. The men of moral pro- 
gress, the foes of despotism and tyranny, the friends of freedom and 
justice, the republicans, the democrats, the advocates of universal hu- 
man rights, are the unbelievers. It is so in Europe : it is so in 
America. Your pulpit men are nearly all tories. In England, they 
are for drink and despotism. In America, they are for oligarchy and 
slavery. 

My opponent asks, who established the law which causes the 
drunkard's disease to descend to his offspring 1 Suppose we should 
say God ; would God be answerable for the disease inflicted by the 
drunkard? Who established the law which enables one man to 



112 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



slander, rob, or kill another ? Suppose we say God; will my oppo- 
nent say God is answerable for all slanders, robberies, and murders 1 
God simply gives man a power ; it is man that is answerable for the 
me of that power. It is well men should have influence over another? 
it is not well they should use it for mischief. Man's power to injure 
the unborn babe no more reflects on God, than the power to injure 
the upgrown now. It is the abuse of the power that is to be regretted. 
But what would my opponent prove ? Would he justify the revenge, 
the injustice, the cruelty, attributed to God in the Bible, by proving 
the existence of something wrong in Nature ? Would two wrongs 
make a right ? Prove the God of Nature as unjust, as mean, as cruel 
as the God of the Bible, and you prove we ought to hate and cen- 
sure both. But the Gcd of Nature, and the God of the Bible, are 
not alike. 

We come now to the Doctor's speech on eternal evidences. 

The Doctor made a number of statements in favour of the Bible, 
but how many of them did he prove ; He did not even attempt to 
prove one of them. With the exception of one or two, which amount 
to nothing, they cannot be proved. They are not true. 

He sa^ s the Bible has a peculiar gravity, dignity, and solemnity of 
style. 

Eead Solomon's songs, or the childish fables of Genesis, or the 
ridiculous revelations which abound in Exodus, Leviticus, and num- 
bers, about the tabernacle, altar, priestly attire, and see whether it has. 

But is everything written in a grand and solemn style of super- 
human origin ? Then the world has superhuman books in abundance. 

He says there is not a subject in the whole ciiele of the sciences to 
which allusion is not made in the Bible. Suppose it were true, what 
then ? Would it prove the Bible divine ? No more than it proves 
the American Encyclopedia divine. But it is not true. I could men- 
tion a thousand subjects, of great importance, to which the Bible 
makes no allusion, and a thousand more after that. 

He says every subject is presented in the Bible with a power, a 
truthfulness, and a clearness unparalleled. It was a pity he made no 
attempt to prove his statement. Every subject presented with a clear- 
ness ? I thought certain portions of the Bible were remarkable for 
their mysteriousness. Truthfulness 1 Why, some of its statementsare 
the most monstrous falsehoods the mind of man can conceive. 

He says not a solitary real discrepancy of precept, doctrine or fact 
can be proved against it. And this was said before an audience that 
had listened to the historical, theological and moral contradictions 
which we had just before mentioned. 

The Doctor says the teachings of the Bible are in harmony with all 
the discoveries of science. Did he try to prove this ? But I had 
forgot. The Doctor did not finish his speech. Perhaps he will try to 
prove his statements towards the close. We shall see. 

He says the Book of Job or the Psalms would have been sufficient 
to give immortality to their authors, on the ground of their literary 
merit alone. This we are willing to acknowledge ; but is every work 
of superior literary merit of superhuman origin ? If so, we have super- 
human books without end. Every nation has them. Every age pro- 
duces them. 

We not only acknowledge the great literary merit of portions of the 
Bible, but the excellency of th© morality of several portions of the book. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



113 



But what then 1 We find both high literary merit and beautiful moral 
principles in thousands of books, which make no pretensions to super- 
human origin. Again : it is worthy of remaik, that some of those 
portions of the Bible, which excel as literary compositions, embody or 
inculcate moral principles of the most revolting character. 

Take the 137th Psalm ; a more beautiful little poem can hardly be 
imagined. But look at its close : " ! daughter of Babylon who art 
to be destroyed — happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little 
ones against the stones." It is thus with several of the Psalms. * 
Poetical beauty accompanies the most savage and revengeful sentiments. 
We have, in our day, poetry equal in beauty to the best of the Psalms, 
and far surpassing them in truthfulness and morality. 

The Doctor says I have wonderful powers of sophistry. I have 
often observed that when my opponents find my arguments unanswer- 
able, they raise the cry of sophistry. If I were really to use sophistry, 
they would expose it ; but when they find nothing but unanswerable 
arguments, they give them an ugly name, and try to get out of the 
way. Such devices may impose on some, but not on all. They may 
answer for a time ; but not for ever. 

The Doctor says the word Godhead, in Romans, means the unity 
of God. He acknowledges, at last you see, that Nature does reveal 
the unity of God. 

He says that Romans 13 is intended to show what kind of rulers 
are worthy of reverence and obedience. We answer, the passage 
itself proves the contrary. Let us read : — 

" Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power 
but of God ; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, 
resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God ; and they that resist shall 
receive to themselves damnation." 

Can words be plainer ? If 'these words do not teach that all powers 
all rulers, are ordained of God — that the governments then existing 
were of God' — that every Christian was to be subject to them, and 
obey them — and that whosoever dared to resist them should receive 
damnation, there are no words that can express such a meaning. If 
the writer had meant to say, v/henever you have got good rulers, who 
command only what is good, and forbid only what is evil, obey them, 
he could easily -have said so. He could as easily have said what he 
thought, asjwhat.he did not think. To suppose that God, or even a 
man of common sense, would say : " Let every sou t be subject to the 
higher powers ; there is no power but of God ; the powers that be are 
ordained of God ; whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth 
the ordinance ; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves dam- 
nation ;" — when he simply meant, Obey good governments, — such 
governments as give only good and righteous commands, — is out of 
ail reason. 

Besides, if the passage meant no more than what my opponent says, 
it would amount to nothing. Obey good governments. But can every 
government be said to be good ? Who is to judge ? The govern- 
ments themselves 1 Then we must obey all, for where is the gov- 
ernment that will acknowledge it is not good ? Must every one 
judge 1 The command is as good as none ; it leaves men perfectly 
at liberty. 

Again, in corresponding passages, about masters and servants, 

H 



114 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



servants are commanded, expressly, to obey, not only the good, gentle 
masters, but the froward. And wives are commanded to obey, not 
only Christian husbands, but unconverted Pagan husbands. 

The Doctor said our law was a nose of wax. But what is his, if its 
precepts can be dealt with as he deals with the passage before us ? 

Besides, where were the good governments he talks about — the 
governments that commanded nothing but what was good, and for- 
bade nothing but what was evil ? There were no Christian govern- 
ments. Were the Pagan governments so good as to command nothing 
but what was good, torbid nothing but what was evil ? What, then, 
becomes of my opponent's remarks about the darkness and depravity 
of the Pagan world 1 

The interpretation of my opponent is the most forced and unnatural 
conceivable. It is not an interpretation, but a perversion. Of course, 
it is very inconvenient to have such passages in a favourite book ; but 
there they are. 

Take then, the passage in its plain and unperverted meaning, and 
it enjoins the basest servility to despotic power, and teaches the 
grossest and most palpable falsehoods to be found in any book on 
earth. It dooms to damnation the best, the bravest, and the noblest 
spirits that have honoured and blest humanity. Cromwell and 
Hampden, Milton and Sidney, Kossuth and Mazzim, and men to 
whom your own great country has given birth, and whose names are 
wonhy of everlasting remembrance, and whose virtuous deeds and 
noble daring have made them the idols of the friends of freedom, and 
the lights and guides of the world, it consigns to the horrors of dam- 
nation. It is a happy thing that men are so often better than their 
creeds and sacred books. If it were not that men are impelled to 
great and noble deeds, in spite of their old authorities and guides, no 
man could take up arms against a tyrant, till he had renounced his 
faith in the Bible. As it is, men who war with tyrants and with 
tyranny, as well as reformers generally, must be looked for among the 
hosts of unbelievers. 

The Doctor says there is nothing in the Bible about God, that is 
contrary to reason. 

We answer, some passages say Jacob, and the elders of Tsrael, and 
Isaiah, saw God ; while others say, no man hath or can see him. 
One class of passages must be contrary to reason. 

Besides, we have proved, by a hundred passages, that the Bible 
attributes to God, not only human infirmities, but the greatest cruelty 
and injustice. 

He says language is incompetent to express the real character of God. 
Then why should any one use it for that purpose ? But I thought 
the Doctor told us that some portions of the Bible did express God's 
character truly. 

Our opponent says we pervert the language of Scripture. A strange 
charge this, to come from one who could deal as he did, with the passage 
in Romans, and others. It is especially strange to be made against 
one who takes the Bible exactly as he finds it, and who grounds all 
his statements on its plain and obvious meaning. 

He says we reject the truth because it is so simple, and that we are 
influenced by the worst of motives. Does not our opponent know how 
easy it would be for us to return such charges 1 But we hope to be 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



115 



preserved from yielding to the strong temptation. We have no in- 
fallible book to guide us, but we think we can see a better way than 
charging an opponent, in public debate, with impure and vicious 
motives. There is a precept in the Gospel, which says, " Judge not, 
that ye be not judged." We do not ourselves regard the precept as 
divine or unobjectionable ; but a person who does so regard it, would 
do well not to violate it so often in a public audience. However, we 
believe that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone, and 
we should try to act accordingly. 

He says the Bible is a wonder. So it is in more respects than one. 

He says it has been proved, over and over again, that all the parts 
of the Bible agree. Will he please to find us one of these proofs. 
We never had the happiness to see one. 

His remarks about raking things out of gutters, scavenger work, and 
the like my opponent will allow me to pass unnoticed. 

He speaks of the arguments of unbelievers being overwhelmed. I 
recollect no instance of such a thing in the present debate. And 
Paine's arguments have never been met. Let me say here, that those 
who have not read Paine's works, cannot conceive how wretched are 
the pretended refutations which have appeared under the sanction of 
the clergy. 

He says that the best evidence of the Divine origin of the Scrip- 
tures is the substantial agreement and circumstantial variation in their 
statements. But he gave us no proof. He favoured us with an 
application of his principle to passages, by way of illustration. The 
truth is, his boasted principle does not fit the passages which I have 
quoted. He cannot find any substantial agreement in them. Examine 
a few. One passage says no man hath seen God at any time ; others 
passages say several people have seen him. Where is the substantial 
agreement here ? 

Some passages say there is no respect of persons with God ; while 
others say he loved one brother and hated the other, before either was 
born. Where is the substantial agreement here % 

One passage says the son shall bear the iniquity of the father ; 
another that he shall not. Where is the substantial agreement here ? 
lake a few historical passages. 

The Bible states in one passage, that God tempted David to num- 
ber the people ; and in another, that it was Satan that tempted him. 
Where is the substantial agreement here ? Are God and Satan the 
same ? 

The Bible states, in one place, that the two thieves reviled Jesus ; 
and in another, that only one reviled him, and was rebuked by the 
other. Where is the substantial agreement ? Is one two 1 (Inter- 
ruption by a cry of Time.) The Moderators will attend to their duty, 
if permitted. 

The Bible states, in one place, that a certain man was two years 
older than his father, and in another, that he was eighteen years 
younger. Where is the substantial agreement here. 
' The Bible states that Saul slew all the Amalekites, except Agag, 
and that Samuel hewed Agag in pieces ; but it also states that, after 
this, David went out to war against the Amalekites. Where is the 
substantial agreement here ? 

The Bible says, in one passage, that Judas bought a field, and broke 



116 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



assunder in the midst, and his bowels gushed out ; another says that 
the high priests bought the field, and that Judas hanged himself. 
Where is the substantial agreement here 1 

Here are substantial, radical differences ; irreconcileable variations. 

Besides, the maxim which he cites is applicable only to human 
courts, where human witnesses, liable to err, testify, and where it is 
necessary to sift the truth from the mass of their statements. It is 
not applicable to a book which pretends, or which its advocates pre- 
tend, consists of the declarations of the omniscient God, who cannot 
err. or speak falsely In a book written by God, all must be true. 
There must not only be no substantial disagreement, but no circum- 
stantial variations. God could no more err in reference to little things, 
than -great things. His words must all be true. (Applause and his- 
ses. Time up.) 

REMARKS OF BEV. DR. BERG. 

(Applause.) My opponent says that I point to no passage in sup- 
port of my assertion, that we find substantial agreement with circum- 
stantial variety in the Scriptures. Now, there is hardly a child who 
cannot understand that substantial agreement between the accounts of 
different writers consists in both giving the same fact. He says, one 
passage, asserts, "And again the anger of the Lord was" kindled against 
Israel, and he moved David against them to say. Go, number Israel and 
Judah." (2 Samuel, 24 : 1) ; while another says, "And Satan stood 
up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Isreal." (1 
Chronicles, 21:1.) He asks, Where is the substantial agreement ? 
Is God Satan 1 Why, the substantial agreement is, that David was 
tempted. Again he quotes, "And they took counsel, and bought with 
them the potter's field" (Matthew 27 ; 7) ; and compares it with, 
"Now, this man put chased a field with the reward of iniquity." 
(Acts 1 : 18.) The substantial agreement here is, that the field was 
bought ; and with the price of Judas's treachery ! (Laughter,) 

We pass over the blasphemous comparison he institutes, by asking, 
"Are God and Satan one ?" and boldly assert that we have already 
answered his miserable subterfuge. We have said that the B.bie 
must be taken as a whole, and we have referred him to the passage 
which says, "Let no man say when he is templed, I am tempted of 
God, for God cannoj be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any 
man ; but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own 
lust, and enticed." James 1 : 13, 14. 

If my opponent will persist in advancing such things as arguments, 
he will lose his reputation of fairness. To quote passages out of their 
connection may be worthy of an Infidel, but it is unworthy of a man. 
(Hisses, tumultuous applause, cries of "Keep quiet.") 

My opponent gives h ; s oft-repeated argument, that Romans 13 : 
1 — 3 teaches that we are to submit to all rulers, be they good or bad, 
and that damnation is meted out to those who resist them, under any 
pretence whatever. It is not so. The passage teaches simply : 

1. That civil government is ordained by God. 

2. That civil government is worthy of the obedience and respect 
of God's people, when rulers "are not a terror to good works, but to 
the evil •" when government is conducted in accordance with the 



REMARKS OF DU. BERG. 



117 



lavvs of God's word. It is the evil who are trying to stir up sedition 
and break down all governments, who will not admit the existence 
of any right rule, because it interferes with the excesses in which they 
delight, and the licentiousness to which their passions would lead 
them. Does the Bible teach obedience to despots, when their com- 
mands oppose His law ? Does he assert that God is the author of 
kingcraft ? He well knows that it was in anger that God gave the Jews 
a king, and that the first form of government which God gave the 
Jews was a pure republic. My opponent says that it is written, 
"Judge not, that ye be not judged." So it is ; and it is also written, 
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Eveiy good tree bringeth forth 
good fruit ; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit;" and while 
we are not to indulge in an uncharitable or censorious spirit, we are 
not forbidden by that passage to form an estimate of any character 
from its fruits. 

I had scarcely, whem my time expired, entered upon the consider- 
ation of my opponent's caricature of the window of the ark. The 
passage reads, "And in a cubit shalt thou finish it above." 

Does this justify my opponent in asserting that this window was 
but one cubit square 1 <; In a cubit shalt thou finish it above." That 
is, the width of the window (and the word is here used to designate 
the means of admitting light) was a cubit above ; merely showing 
that the roof of the ark in which it was placed sloped upward to a 
ridge of about a cubit wide. Sure enough ! Let my opponent 
answer that ! My opponent asks, How could this ark be venti- 
lated ? How could the filth of these animals be all carried up, and 
thrown out of the window 1 Has he forgotton that there w T as a door 
to the ark ? The farmer would sometimes use the door, sometimes 
the window of his barn. Like my opponent, I have a place in the 
country with a stable upon it ; and it is a matter of indifference to 
me, whether the refuse is thrown out of the door or window. 

But, says my opponent, the Bible says no tiling about ventilators ! 
Well, and it says nothing about nails and spikes ; but are we to 
suppose that the ark was held together without them ? Instructions 
were given which were perfectly intelligible to Noah, and he acted 
upon them. The Bible speaks as to men of candour and sense. It 
does not presume, we will infer, that the ark was destitute of all con- 
venience and all comfort, because every little detail is not given. In 
relation to the door, I read: "And the door of the ark shalt thou set 
in the side thereof ; with lower, second and third stories shalt thou 
make it." 

This would seem to imply that each story was supplied with a door. 
The details of the measurement are pronounced by those in the pro- 
fession best able to understand them, those who have large maritime 
experience, to be in strict accordance with the best results discovered 
in ship building by modern science. Noah, must have had an extra- 
ordmaiy mechanical genius. Here, again, is internal evidence, that 
Noah was divinely directed. The difficulty of getting all the animals 
to the ark, stated by my opponent, is just no difficulty at all. Was 
God, the Maker, and Creator of these animals, unable to guide them 
to the ark at the appointed time, by prompting their instinct. 1 

Let not my opponent confound his nameless God with the 
Christian's God, (Jehovah.) who is the Creator and Sovereign of the 



118 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



universe 1 — is proved to be the God of Nature, of Providence, and of 
Grace. This example of the ark is not only important on its intiinsic 
merits, but from the associations connected with it. 

Infidels say, Present us facts that an unbiassed world pronounces 
to be facts. Here is one. Was it a real occurrence ? There is 
scarcely a historical account extant of any nation or tribe, or historical 
tradition, even, which does not embrace the notion, that, long ages 
ago, their ancestor was saved from a great flood of water. How 1 
All the accounts agree, that it was by enclosure in a large floating 
edifice of his own construction. Whence this intimation 1 Did the 
earth whisper it ? Did the stars announce it ? Whence did Noah 
get the promptings that carried him forward in his design ? From 
the first rain 1 Why should he be alarmed at this 1 He had often 
seen rain before. Blot out the whole mosaic account, and we find 
the notion or tradition of which we speak, incorporated in the 
religious rites and ceremonies of all nations. We meet it in Greece, 
in Egypt, in India, in Britain. We find in all these countries its 
memories installed, thus proving, under Providence, the fact of the 
flood's occurrence. Whence this consent 1 Does my opponent think 
that all mankind are fools, superstitious dupes, but Infidels ? Now, 
does not this fact prove an intimation from God 1 Who else could 
give it ? Why did Noah provide for protection from water, rather 
than from fire or earthquake 1 Because he was forewarned of God. 

The Apostle says, " By faith, Noah being warned of God of things 
not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of 
his house." 

Let us pass from all annals to the teaching of Nature. We find 
truth imbedded in the earth ; we find the discoveries of geology con- 
firming a deluge. 

My opponent says, there are, in parts of the earth no trace — 

Mr. Barker. — I did not say so. Prof. Hitchcock (holding up 
"Religion of Geology,") says, there is no trace in any part of the earth 
of such a deluge as that spoken of in the Bible. 

Dr. Berg. — Then Prof. Hitchcock tells us a makes a tremen- 
dous mistake. In almost all parts of the earth, we find indelible im- 
pressions, firmly convincing us that God did bring about the catastrophe 
of submerging the world with water. 

My opponent alluded to my remarks on Friday evening, on the 
first charpttr of Genesis, and totally perverted them. 

Let me now advance on the positive side of the argument for in- 
ternal evidence of the Divinity of the Bible. The appearance of 
Christ in an age the most corrupt ; his character presenting excel- 
lencies they had never before seen ; unrivalled, nay, almost un- 
approached by the best of earth ; this appearance, I say, at such a 
time, is utterly beyond Nature, and surpasses the most wonderful 
miracle. This difficulty lies before my opponent, and he must meet 
it, before he can prove Christianity a delusion. He will hardly 
deny the existence of Christ, but even if he should, how will he ex- 
plain the still more wonderful phenomenon that four men should im- 
agine such a character, and transmit such a portrait, with no original 
from which to draw their copy ? 1 1 is absurd. The Evangelists were 
plain, unlettered men ; they were not the miracles of genius which 
they must have been to originate the lovely character of our Redeemer. 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



119 



There are a few points conclusive, to my mind, in establishing 
the Messiahship of Christ. His appearance, his whole doctrine, his 
kingdom, his character, were at variance with the expectations of the 
Jews. They thought that Christ, at his appearing, was to be the in- 
strument of breaking their yoke of civil bondage, and exalting their 
nation to supreme power and fame. At the very time that, not only 
Jews, but Gentiles., in all parts of the world, were anxiously looking 
for the arrival of some personage, who would have most powerful in- 
fluence upon their religion and their institutions, Christ appeared. 

These impressions of his advent, which were so rife at the time, 
doubtless arose from the old prophecies, which designated time and 
place of his appearance. The classical historian was familiar with 
them ; and this fact may be of sufficient importance to authorize 
quotation. Let us read Josephus, where he mentions the causes of 
the Jewish revolt : — 

u That which chiefly encouraged them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, 
found also in our sacred writings, that about that time, some one from Judea 
should obtain the empire of the world. This, they understood to belong to 
themselves; and many of their wise men were mistaken in their judgment ; for 
this oracle referred to the government of Vespasian, who was proclaimed 
Emperor in Judea." 

The second is from Suetonius. His words are : — 

" There had been, for a long time, all over the East, a notion, firmly be- 
lieved, that it was in the books of the fates, that some one from Judea was 
destined, about that time, to obtain the empire of the world." 

So Tacitus, after mentioning the calamities arising out of the de- 
struction of their city, says : — 

" That the mass of the people entertained a strong persuasion, that it was 
mentioned in the ancient writings of the priests, that at that very time, the 
East should prevail, and that some one from Judea should obtain the empire 
of the world. These ambiguities predicted Yespasian and Titus ; but the 
common people, according to the usual influence of human passions, having 
once appropriated to themselves this destined greatness, could not be brought 
to understand the true meaning, by all their adversities." 

All these vague expectations I believe to have been fulfilled in the 
coming of Christ ; and this is confirmed by the fact, that numerous 
pretenders to the Messiahship appeared in the field about his time. 

Now, let us remember, that the four Evangelists were Jews, and 
Jews of the lower class ; therefore doubly apt to imbibe the preju- 
dices of those over them. How could they, in opposition to what 
they themselves tell us were their own anticipations, and what we 
know were the anticipations of the nation, proclaim as the Messiah 
this meek and lowly Jesus ? 

In answer to the objection sometimes made, that the Evangelists 
wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, I say, why should these men 
make Christ predict that very overthrow which they expected he 
could prevent ? Why should they receive him, in spite of all their 
prejudices. 

Christ's character is peculiar. The Evangelists might have found 
a prototype for a fancy sketch among their prophets. Christ differs 
from them all. He is meek and lowly, and yet speaks as one who 
knows that his mission is to establish a new dispensation. He comes 
without austerity. His manners are familiar, but dignified. 

He readily communicates instruction to honest inquirers. He 



120 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



overwhelms his enemies by pungent appeals. He boldly assails the 
rulers, and denounces woe upon the Pharisees, who neglected the 
weightier matters of the law for minor ceremonies. He spake with 
such authority and grandeur that the very men who came to drag 
him to prison and to judgment, went away exclaiming, " Never man 
spake like this man." This originality is the more remarkable, because 
the Jewish Rabbis had made the ceremonial law even more exacting, 
and its power was fettered by traditions. The Talmud abounded 
with grotesque superstition. The Saviour complained that they had 
made void the law of God. See Him sitting down to meat with un- 
washed hands, eating with publicans and sinners, associating with 
Gentiles, and doing many other things from which the Jews shrank 
with horror. Listen to his discourses. He omits tithes and sacrifices, 
and speaks of mercy and justice. He denounces external sanctity, 
and preaches purity of heart ; and he does all this, claiming to be the 
Messiah, the object of the expectations of the Jews. 

How could four unlettered Jews invent this character 1 The soured 
Infidel may turn away from this portrait ; but what unbiassed mind 
can fail to recognise the lineaments of the glorious Son of God ? 
{Time up. Long applause.) 



SIXTH EVENING. 

BEMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 

(Silence.) As the discussion to-night may lead to some freedom of 
comment on the New Testament, and the character of Jesus as there 
taught, it may not be amiss to make a few preliminary remarks. We 
wish it to be distinctly understood, that we find no fault with the New 
Testament on account of anything good in its contents. Ail its ex- 
hortations to virtue, charity, courtesy, temperance, and purity, we 
cordially approve. Whatever is beautiful, noble, good, and generous, 
in the characters it recommends as examples, we admire. ' If we have 
any objections to it, it is to such portions of its contents as seem to 
us at variance with truth and human duty. If our duty should lead 
us to point out any defects or positive faults in the leading characters, 
we wish it understood, that we find no fault with what is good in 
them. We do not find fault with the Church because it is too good, 
too pure, too gentle, too courteous, or too useful to mankind. We 
find no fault with the Ministry, on the ground that it presses human 
duty too closely on the conscience, or that it wars too sternly with 
the great evils of intemperance, slavery, oppression and impurity. 
We find fault with the Bible, because we think its teachings fall short 
of the real standard of truth and human duty ; and we find fault with 
the Church and Ministry, because they are too little concerned for 
truth and duty, and too much for themselves ; too anxious for popu- 
larity, wealth and power. We find fault with them, because they 
are not zealous for the annihilation of those social evils which cause 
ignorance and wretchedness, and for the accomplishment of those re- 
forms which would tend to the instruction, the purification, the hap- 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



121 



piness, and salvation of the race. Tn fine, our objection to them is 
that they are not sufficiently wise, or good, or charitable, or useful. 

The Doctor says " I ought to know" that the faith which they say 
leads to salvation, is always accompanied by good works. Now it 
happens that I do not know any such thing. I know the contrary. 
The vast majority of those who profess Christianity, (and, according 
to the Doctor and the Bible, I must judge the doctrine by its fruits,) 
do not distinguish themselves by their zeal, by good works, by their 
efforts for the improvement and happiness of mankind, but the con- 
trary. They are remarkable for selfishness, deceit, malignity. They 
tumble as often into the mud, and sink as deep in the mire of sin, as 
others, and defile themselves, and others as much, with licentious 
abominations. This is the tendency of their doctrine. If they be- 
lieved that men reaped as they sow, they would sow good seed ; but 
as they believe they will reap as another has sowed, they are apt to 
be careless about the seed they sow. Suppose a gardener, instead of 
trusting to his ovvn culture, believes his garden will be kept free from 
weeds, and will be made to produce as much good fruit, and as many 
beautiful flowers, by the horticultural skill of a neighbour, the ten-, 
dency would be to make him defer his labours until some period which 
might be extremely convenient. But if he believes that fruits and 
flowers will come only in reward of his own industry, he will be dili- 
gent. And so in respect to moral conduct : If I believe T am to be 
damned or saved, according to the life I lead, I am likely to seek out 
the best course of life, and follow it. But if, on the other hand, I 
am to be saved by faith, and works are a secondary matter, — if I 
believe I am to be saved by relying on another's merits and another's 
sufferings, the tendency is to make me more anxious to get hold of the 
true faith, to care more for believing right, than for studying and fol- 
lowing the best, the most useful way of life. 

Men, generally, are not able to investigate historical matters, and 
satisfy themselves as to the grounds of faith. Ancient history, and 
ecclesiastical history, especially, is a region of mist and darkness, a 
world of doubt and uncertainty. There is nowhere where men can rest. 
Then controversies about doctrines are endless. No one can examine 
them all. Not one in a thousand can examine a tenth or a hundredth 
part of them. Even the controversies about the inspiration, the au- 
thenticity, the genuineness, the canonicity of the different books of 
the Bible, and the value of different manuscripts, readings, translations 
and interpretations are endless. The consequence is, men are obliged 
to leave such matters to their priests. The authority of the Bible 
becomes the authority of the priest. The believer rests his faith on 
the priest. True, the priest may no more judge for himself than the 
layman : no matter ; the layman trusts in him. He spends his 
powers of thought on matters of trade, and blindly rests on authority 
in matters of religion and duty. Thus men neglect to exercise their 
intellects, till they have no intellects to exercise. They lose their 
power of judging. They cannot distinguish the plainest truths from 
gross and palpable falsehoods. When, therefore, they are taught 
that men may be saved from the consequences of a life of sin, at the 
hour of death, — when they are taught that the vilest sinner may 
return, so long as the lamp of life holds out to burn, that sins red as 
scarlet or crimson, can at once be made as white as wool ; in short, 



122 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



when they are taught that, by faith alone in the merits or righteous- 
ness of another, the thief, the liar, the drunkard, the profligate, the 
murderer, may escape hell, and enter at once into eternal blessedness 
and glory, they receive it as God's own truth, live carelessly, recklessly, 
in selfishness and sin, a curse, a disgrace, and a torment to mankind. 

The Doctor says that the Scribes and Pharisees were the Infidels of 
Christ's day. If so, Infidels then were very different from Infidels 
now. Infidels, now-a-days, do not pray in the synagogues, or at the 
corners of the streets ; and especially, they do not devour widows' 
houses, and, for a pretence make long prayers. They do not even pay 
tithes cf mint and anise, and cummin, and neglect the weightier 
matters of the law; they do not talk much of trifling ceremonies, but 
speak rather of truth, and freedom and intellect, and moral cultivation. 
They would give a large waggon load of theological opinions, for tem- 
perance, charity, purity, and manliness in a man's own character. The 
Doctor knows that the Pharisees of Christ's day were sectarians, and 
that they made broad their phylacteries to indicate their great author- 
ity and piety. The Infidels were the Sadduces, and it is a remarkable 
fact, that Jesus had little, if any, fault to find with their morals. The 
Scribes were the teachers of the law, the Pharisees were the great pro- 
fessors, and against them Christ fulminated his most terrible an- 
athemas. » 

The Doctor says the "substantial agreement" in the two stories, 
respecting the numbering of the people was, that David did number 
them ; and that the " circumstantial variation" in the stories is, that 
one of them says : Satan moved him to do it, and the other that God 
did. And this substantial agreement and circumstantial variation, the 
Doctor says, is the strongest of all kinds of testimony. 

Well, let us see how such testimony would work in a court of 
justice. A man has been murdered, and two witnesses are brought, 
who say they know who murdered him. There stands the prisoner 
suspected of the murder. Samuel is sworn, and testifies that the pri- 
soner at the bar killed the man. I saw him do it. I am, besides,.in- 
fallible. I speak by divine inspiration, and cannot, therefore err. 
Very well. Ezra is sworn next, and he testifies that the person who 
committed the murder was quite a different man from the prisoner at 
the bar. Why, says he, the prisoner at the bar is black, whereas the 
murderer was white. - I saw the murder committed. I knew the 
murderer perfectly. Besides I am inspired of God ; I cannot be 
mistaken. 

Would these two witnesses settle the matter ? Just the contrary. 
They would destroy each other's credit. 

But suppose another witness, called James, steps forward, and says, 
no man murdered the dead man ; he died of an internal disease. I am 
divinely inspired and know. This, surely, would prove the charge 
against the prisoner. Ridiculous ! The result of such testimony 
would be the discharge of the prisoner, and the arrest of the three 
witnesses as perjured imposters, notwithstanding their pretensions to 
divine inspiration. 

Imagine a civil suit respecting a field. I want to prove the field was 
purchased by a brother priest, and I bring two witnesses to prove the 
point. Matthew takes the oath first, and swears : I am an infallible 
witness. God has made me so. God speaks through me. The field 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



123 



was bought by the priest. Luke qualifies next, and swears : I have a 
perfect knowledge of all these things. I am God Almighty's speaking 
trumpet. It is not I that speaks, but God that speaketh through me. 
Judas bought the field. While the court is all in amazement, 
Matthew appeals to Jeremiah to confirm his statement. Jeremiah is 
sworn, and says he knows nothing about it. The testimony attributed 
to Jeremiah is not found in his works. Zachariah is called on, and 
says it was he that bought the field. And they all declare themselves 
inspired and infallible. The court says the case must be dismissed. 
" Please your honour," says the counsellor, " the case seems very plain. 
The evidence is the best that can be. We have substantial agreement 
with circumstantial variations." 

Is this the way the audience is to be trifled with ? Substantial 
agreement and circumstantial variation ! You may prove anything 
by such rules of evidence. Theie are the Doctor and myself ; we 
both believe there is such a book as the Bible ; this is the substantial 
agreement. But the Doctor says the Bible is of God ; while I contend 
it is of man. This is only a circumstantial variation. Nothing more. 
We are, therefore agreed. 

The Doctor says again, that what the thirteenth of Romans teaches 
is, that civil government is ordained of God, and that good rulers are 
worthy of the respect of all God's people. 

This is just what the passage does not teach. What the passage 
does teach is—] 

J . That we are to obey the powers that be, making no exceptions 
or qualifications. 

2. That if we resist them, we shall receive damnation. 

As reasons why we ought to obey rulers, the passage tells us — 

1. That there is no power but of God. 

2. That the powers that be — the powers then in being — were of 
God. 

3. That whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the 
ordinance of God, and shall receive to themselves damnation. It adds, 
as a fourth reason, that rulers are not a terror to good works, but — 

5. That they are a terror to evil ; and, 

6. That if we do that which is good, we shall have praise from 
them, &c. 

These are the plain, the positive, the unqualified teachings of the 
passage, and baser and falser teachings I defy the world to produce. 
1 know well enough that the Doctor could write a better passage ; 
but that is not his business. His business is to prove the passage al- 
ready written to be of God, or else give up his theory of Scripture 
inspiration. 

The Doctor says Infidels take the ground that men have no right 
to rule. Does he mean that we take such ground ? If so, it is a cal- 
umny — a base and inexcusable calumny. We say that men have a 
right to rule, when their countrymen appoint them to do so. True, 
we say that men have no right to rule in virtue of their birth, or in 
virtue of ill gotten wealth ; and we also say, that even when men have 
been appointed by a nation to rule, they have no right to use their 
power against the rights or liberties of the nation. If we are wrong 
in so believing, have pity on us, and enlighten us. But our principle 
is, that rulers are for the people, not the people for the rulers ; that 



124 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



the people are sovereign, and the rulers servants ; that neither king, 
nor aristocrat, nor priest, has any more right to rule, than the printer 
or the ploughboy, till commissioned to do so by the people. If rulers 
abuse their power, the people have a right to depose them. If they 
resist the will of the people, the people have a right to tumble them 
from their places by force, and to punish them for their insolence, too. 
The people have a right to resist every form of tyranny and usurpa- 
tion. Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. The English were 
siever further from damnation, than when they humbled the tyrant 
and the traitor Charles ; and the descendants of those English reform- 
ers were never further from damnation, than when they resisted the 
tyranny of George the Third, and declared this great and glorious 
country free and independent. 

These are the principles of those you reproachfully call Infidels. If 
you have any better, let us hear them. 

My opponent says God instituted a republican form of government 
among the Jews. 

Then God did well, in our judgment. But did he give no power 
to the priests, think you % 

God never instituted king- craft, the Doctor says. So we think ; 
but there is much king craft in the world, and priest- craft too, and the 
Bible says the powers that be are ordained of God— and that whoso- 
ever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. 

To justify himself in charging us with immorality, he quotes the 
passage, " By their fruits ye shall know them." Let us quote the 
whole passage : — 

" Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but invar- 
iably are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." 

I take the meaning to be, " Ye shall know whether preachers are 
really the friends of the people or not, by their lives." Does my op- 
ponent know any thing about my life % Does he know me to be a 
drunkard, a profligate, or a thief ? If he thinks he does, let him speak. 
If he will prove me guilty of any crime, or stained with any vice, I 
will retire, and leave the platform and the victory to him. These per- 
sonal charges and insinuations are discreditable and inexcusable. (Sen- 
sation.) 

The Doctor says there are proofs in almost every part of the earth, 
that, at some remote period, God visited the earth with a flood. We 
answer, Geologists say there are proofs of several great floods ; but 
even theological Geologists, such as Hitchcock, Pye Smith, and Dr. 
Harris, say there is no trace of such a flood as the one recorded in 
Genesis ; that there are no traces of any universal deluge ; that the 
great floods of which the earth bear traces, all took place before the 
appearance of man on the earth. As for the origin of the almost uni- 
versal tradition of which the Doctor spoke, what more natural than 
for men, when they saw almost every where the marks of great floods, 
to frame some such stories as those of the Greeks and Romans, or 
the monstrous and impossible table of the Bible ? 

One word more about this deluge story, and we have done for the 
present. According to Hitchcock, and other Christian Geologists, 
there are half a million species of birds, beasts, and creeping things. 
According to the Bible, therefore, there would have to be about a 
million and a half in the ark ; for, of the birds and all clean beasts, 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER 



125 



there were to be fourteen of a species. Noah and his family would 
have to feed, water, and clear after 2500 a minute, (hissing and ap- 
plause,) 01 42 in a second. The idea is monstrous. (Hissing and 
applause.) 

The Doctor again says, that the matter of which the universe is made 
was created an indefinite period before the six days mentioned in Gen- 
esis. But the Bible does not say so. The Bible says nothing about 
the creation of matter ; it simply speaks of the creation of the heavens 
and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is ; and these it over and 
over again declares, contrary to the revelations of geology, were aCl 
made in six days, about six thousand years ago. 

However, I am glad the Doctor is beginning to place himself on 
geological, philosophical, Infidel ground. 

He has told us twice, that the natural man ur.derstandeth not the 
things of the spirit, neither can know them, because they are spiri- 
tually discerned. We ask, why, then, does he talk to natural people 
about them ? Did he come here to talk to the regenerate only 1 If 
natural men cannot understand spiritual things, how are they to 
become spiritual ? Can we be converted by the truth before we un- 
derstand it ? Are we to be converted first, and understand it only 
afterwards ? What is the use of your spiritual things, if people can 
be regenerated and made spiritual without understanding them 1 

My opponent should know, that the original word should be trans- 
lated animal, not natural. The animal man, — the man lost in sen- 
suality, — the man in whom the intellectual and moral faculties have 
never been unfolded, cannot well understand the things of the spirit. 
But are we thus animal ? Does it become the preacher of humility 
to say, my intellectual and moral faculties are well developed ; but 
my opponent's are not developed at all 1 I am spiritual, and can 
judge all things ; but my opponent is -animal, and can judge or dis- 
cern nothing 1 Perhaps it would be as well to let others judge which 
of us seems to understand things best. 

We had next an essay on the advent of Jesus, and on his character 
and doctrine. The object of the essay was to prove the Bible of 
superhuman origin, I suppose ; for the superhuman origin of the Bible 
is the point in dispute. Did the essay make good that point ? Did 
it prove a single book, or a single chapter of the Bible, of superhuman 
origin ? — Not at all. 

He says there was a general expectation, about eighteen hundred 
years ago, that some great personage was to be born in Judea, who 
should gain the empire of the world. 

Very well ; what then ? — Several persons appeared among the 
Jews, says he, and professed to he that person. 

Exactly so ; the very thing to be expected in such circumstances. 
There is a tendency in such expectations and prophecies to fulfil 
themselves exactly in that way. 

But Jesus of Nazareth was the person really alluded to. 

Where is the proof ? Did the Doctor give any ? We think not. 
But suppose he had proved this point, would it prove the Divine 
origin of Solomon's song, or of the blasphemous, immoral, and con- 
tradictory portions of the Bible 1 Would it prove the superhuman 
origin of any book ?— -Nothing of the kind. 

But the character of Jesus was perfect, and his doctrine was true 
and divine, said the Doctor. 



126 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



But did he prove what he said ? — He did not even attempt to 
prove it. His essay, on this point, was all assertion ; bare, unsup- 
ported assertion. 

Did he tell us what constitutes a perfect character ? — No. 

Did he tell us how we may know when a character is perfect 1 — No. 

Did he tell us on what grounds he judged the character of Jesus to 
be perfect ? — No. 

But, to make good his proposition, he must do all these things. 
. Besides, what proof did he give that the account given of Jesus in 
ihr New Testament is a true account ? — None. 

But the portrait given of Jesus in the New Testament, says my 
opponent, was drawn by those who were well acquainted with him. 
How does he know ? Where is the proof 1 He cannot know. There 
is no proof, 

But suppose it were so, what proof could he give us that the ac- 
quaintances of Jesus drew his portrait correctly 1 — None. Where is 
the proof that they were able to portray him correctly ? Where is the 
proof that they were willing to do so ? — There is none. ( Time up.) 

EEMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG. 

(Enthusiastic applause.) Before proceeding to answer my oppo- 
nent's speech of this evening, I will allude to a few points made by 
him last evening. He says of the account given by Matthew, " Then 
was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy, the prophet, saying, 
And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him that was 
valued, and gave them for the potter's field," (Matthew 27 : 9, 10,) 
that no such words are found in Jeremiah, though a somewhat similar 
account is given by Zacharia. (Zachariah 9 : 13.) I will easily ex- 
plain this, by the quotation of a few words from " Gaussen on the 
Inspiration of the Scriptures." 

"We know by Jerome, that there existed in his day an Apocryphal book of 
the prophet Jeremiah, in which the words quoted by St. Matthew are found, 
letter for letter. It is also shown, that the second book of Maccabees records 
many of the actions and words of Jeremiah, which are taken from another 
book, and not from his Canonical Prophecies. Why, then, should not the 
words quoted by the Evangelist really hare been pronounced by Jeremy, and 
might they not have lived in the memory of the Church, down to the time of 
Zechariah, who would then himself theopneustically give them a place in Holy 
Writ? as is the case in the traditional words of Enoch, quoted in the Epistle 
of Jude ; or the traditional words of Jesus Christ, quoted by the Apostle Paul 
in the book of Acts. What confirms this supposition is, that the words cited 
by Matthew are only partly found in Zechariah. Moreover, it is known that 
this prophet loved to record the words of Jeremiah." 

My opponent then introduced a large amount of chaff, which would 
require time to winnow and swift. You cannot wish me to occupy 
either my time or yours for this purpose now. (Applause.) 

There are certain kinds of argument which it is impossible to meet 
with sober refutation. When we see a man assuming the strut of 
self-satisfied complacency, we may know that it is done to cover over 
his lack of argument. It is one of the common tricks of enemies of 
the truth. He quoted me as arguing that every book possessing 
grandeur of style, and sublimity of thought, was of superhuman origin, 
because I adduced these qualities as one link in the chain of evidence 
proving the Divine origin of the Bible. He asks triumphantly, Is 



REM AUKS OF DR. BERG. 



127 



every such book superhuman ? T answer, No. Suppose my oppo- 
nent were giving us a lecture on the human system, body and soul ; 
or, as some Infidels say, they have no soul, we may leave out the 
spiritual part, to accommodate them. Among other things, he tells us 
that a man has two ears. A day or two after, I bring him an animal 
with two long ears, (applause,) introduce him as his fellow- man, 
and invite him to embrace his brother. (Applause.) What would 
he think of such an argument ? Precisely what I think of his argu- 
ment. (A voice in the crowd, "There are other judges here than 
Mr. Berg — that's not the subject," Cries of " Turn him out," and 
general disturbance for a few moments.) 

Mr. Chambers succeeded in restoring order, and Dr. Berg proceeded. 

Is every animal that has two ears a man ? But it is just such 
artifice as this that constitutes his tactics. I shall not follow him 
through all his vagaries, but merely say that the ancients had a pro- 
verb, Ex pede, Herculem ; I wish to add to it another, Ex aure 
asinum. 

My opponent says he thought there was only one God, and the 
necessity of a specific name was done away with. The word God 
has become generic, by being used to denote the gods of the heathen, 
and all others. Let him give his God a name — Jupiter, Apollo, 
Mars, or even his own name, Joseph Barker. (Laughter.) 

Tell me that the heathen could arrive at correct results concerning 
all the attributes of God from the teachings of Nature ! My 
opponent knows as well as I do, that the Greek Deiotes, translated 
" Godhead" in the passage in Romans, which he quotes to prove his 
assertion, means only God's supreme excellence, or glory. If it alone 
meant all God's attributes, why should one of them (eternal power) 
be specified in this very passage ? Did the heathen know God from 
Nature ? No. " They changed the glory of the incorruptible 
God into the image of corruptible man;" — "Professing themselves 
to be wise, they became fools." Show me one single notion among 
any of the heathen, that is not borrowed from the Bible. By the 
teachings of Nature only, they became addicted to all manner of 
crime and evil. Does Paul teach the needlessness of the Scriptures ? 
Was Paul an Infidel Deist, as Job was a Pagan Deist ? Mr. Barker 
quotes " that which may be known of God is manifest in them." 
Let us read the whole passage. "For the invisible things of Him 
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by 
the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead ; so 
that they are without excuse." 

My opponent shows the poverty of his Infidel resources by going 
to the Bible for his argument. 

How does he evade the proof that Job believed in Christ ? He 
here displayed his ignorance, if not something worse. He cries out 
about the plain meaning ! but when the plain meaning of a passage 
in the oldest book extant slays him, he runs for shelter to the com- 
mentators. (Applause.) Alas ! they'll show him no protection ; 
for nine out of ten of them uphold my view. (Laughter.) Mr. 
Barker is his own commentator ; he has a system of hermeneutics to 
himself. He goes at the passages about children like an Orthodox 
priest, comparing Scripture with Scripture. The words mean both 
what he says they do, and what I say they do. 

My opponent is shifting his ground. He laughts at the account of 



123 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



Abraham's sacrifice of his son, because God prevented it, and yet 
cites the case of Jephtha's daughter to prove that God accepts human 
sacrifices. Did ever man blow hot and cold more fierecly ? (Ap- 
plause.) If an Infidel in his despair should leap from the roof of 
this house, and dash his brains out in the street, would God accept 
his sacrifice, because he did not suspend the laws of the universe to 
prevent his act 1 .But he denies the analogy between natural and 
moral things. He calls it cruel to slay the seven sons of Saul for the 
sins of their father. Let him settle the question with his nameless 
God. He asks, "Has any civil government now the right? to act in 
this manner ?" No. It is beyond the province of human control. 
God administers his own government We do not know the reason, 
but we know the fact, that God does visit the sins of the fathers upon 
the children to the third and forth generation. 

This is one of the evasions which my opponent uses when he is 
cornered. Let him tell us why the God of nature, his nameless God, 
could not, in justice to the unborn children, whom he pities so very 
much, have ordered the laws of Physiology so that the diseases of the 
drunken and licentious should not descend upon their children. 
(Applause.) Why can he not break this Jaw, which links the misery 
of the whole human race to the sin of their first progenitor? (Applause.) 

Let me develop the Infidel theory of the soul's recuperative powers. 
The Infidel believes that every man has a saviour within himself; 
that conscience is the law, and obedience to its dictates is salvation. 
A thief steals your money ; conscience troubles him, and he restores 
it. Well, so far so good. He satisfies you, perhaps. But where is 
the command, Thou shalt not steal 1 * If it is merely a violation of 
human law, what kind of God is this who cares not whether you lie, 
or cheat, or steal ? But suppose the thief, before this restitution, 
should be taken ill and die, (God never forgives sin, says Mr. 
Barker.) will he send man, then to his Infidel heaven 1 

There are numberless points of this kind in my opponent's speech, 
making a total of atheistical jargon, which I have never heard sur- 
passed. They might be answered, but the game is scarcely worth 
the powder. My opponent says the law does not define adultery. 
How happens it that every Christian know T s what it is? 

When my opponent alleges a contradiction between the two 
accounts given by the two Evangelists of the crucifixion, how does he 
know that both statements are not true 1 Might not both thieves, at 
the beginning, have reviled him ? But as the scence progresses, one 
of them, moved by the majestic sweetness of the suffering Saviour, is 
heart-broken, and rebukes the railing Infidel. Does my opponent 
ask here for substanial agreement ? (Applause.) There is not only 
substantial agreement between the two accounts, but both are a ful- 
filment of the prophecy of Isaiah, "He was numbered with the 
transgressors." Before my opponent so triumphantly announces his 
assertions as proved, he must show us that the apparent discrepancy 
cannot be reconciled by any rule. 

I w T ill now proceed to my argument, drawn from the character of 
Jesus Christ. When my opponent attacked that argument, he knew 
that I had only entered upon the threshold of it. This was scarcely 
fair, but I go on. 

The character of Chrits presents, 

1, Unexampled moral grandeur. Behold the strongest fortitude 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



129 



mingled with the most melting tenderness ; awful majesty with con- 
descending familiarity ; almighty power with the most lowly humility. 
Behold Him who raised Lazarus from the dead, washing the disciples' 
feet ; the Lord of all, dispensing his bounties like a prince, posssess- 
ing no treasure and having no place where to lay his head ; working 
the most astonishing miracles, and yet perfectly unconcerned about 
his fate. 

In suffering, behold the majesty of that brow ! He is great, while 
uttering words of love and entreaty ; majestic when, with divine 
tenderness, he stopped the bier that bore the lonely widow's son, and 
with one word restored him to her arms. He is mightier still, when 
on the cross. While his enemies heap curse on curse on his devoted 
head, he sublimely cries, "Father, forgive them; they know not what 
they do;" then bows his head, and in great agony, gives up the 
ghost. 

Need we press the argument that the Evangelists were conscientious 
believers ? How codld they else emerge from the babbling follies of 
Infidelity surrounding them, and make such a portrait ? See its sub- 
limity, derived from no art of the narrator ! It is truth that needs 
not, will not bear an ornament. See its symmetry and consistency I 
Always compassionate to sorrow, lenient to human infirmity, He 
presents the same calm repose, whether the rabble frown or cry 
Hosanna ; whether driven from the haunts of men, or entering Jeru- 
salem in triumph ; whether comforting his weeping disciples or 
preaching truth to the despised mass of his followers, he is always the 
same great compassionate Jesus, the friend of the poor, and the Saviour 
of sinners. Not one unworthy word ever dropped from his lips. 
His whole life was one continued attestation of the truth of his pro- 
fessions ; of the truth that he was really " God manifest in the fle"sh" 
(Applause.) 

This may suffice for the leading argument on the internal evidence 
of the divinity of the Bible. 

I pass now to Infidel opinions of Christ. 

They themselves admit that he was a good man. Hear the cele- 
brated Rosseau, in his treatise on education : — 

" If the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of 
Jesus were these of a God. Shall we suppose the evangelic history a fiction '? 
Indeed, my friends, it bears not the mark of fiction. On the contrary, the 
history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested f;s 
that of Jesus Christ. Such a supposition, in fact, only shifts the difficulty 
without obviating it; it is more inconceivable that a number of person's 
should agree to write such a history, than that one only should furnish tLe 
subject of it. The Jewish authors were incapable of the diction and of tLe 
morality contained in the Gospel, the marks of whose truth are so striking 
and inimitable, that the inventor would be a more astonishing character- than 
the hero." 

Now, hear Tom Paine, whom my opponent eloquently eulogises. 
After ridiculing the account of Christ's birth, he says : — ■ 

• " Nothing that is here said can imply even the most distant disrespect to 
the moral character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and amiable man. 
The morality that he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind. 
He called men to the practice of moral virtues, and the belief of one God. 
The great trait in his eharacter is philanthropy." 

( Time up, Dr. Berg pat down amid tremendous cheering.) 

i * al-v,. 



130 



DISCUSSION ON THK BIBLE, 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 

" He was a virtuous and amiable man," says Paine. And so, as 
far as 1 know, will unbelievers generally say. We ourselves would say, 
that the portrait of Christ, as given by the Evameiists, possesses 
many beautiful traits. But we doubt the peif-ction of the portrait, 
and we deny, at the same time, that the teachings of Jesus were all 
true and gojd, or that his arguments were always sound. My oppo- 
nent professes next, to yive a quotation fiom Rosseau in praise of Jesus, 
If Roseau published the quotation just quoted, as expressive of his 
own convictions, and not as a declaration of the opinions held by 
some character in a novel, why call him an Infidel ? If he uttered 
them as his own, if he abode by them during life, without altering or 
withdrawing them, then he was a Christian, and no Infidel. Tf he 
he'd these views in early life, but afterwards changed his opinions, 
then there will probahly be found some statements of his reasons for 
the change in other parts of his writings. In this c^se, the passage 
should not be quoted as the words of Rosseau the Infidel, but as the 
words of Rosseau the believer. Tn either ca?e, the quotation is out 
of place. The truth is, the word;? quoted from Rosseau, are quoted 
from a novel, They are the words, not of Rosseau, but the words of 
one of the characters pourtrayed in the novel. To quote them as the 
words of an Infidel is ridiculous. 

As to Paine, his writings show that he admired moral and intellec- 
tual excellence wherever found, that he studied with rapture the 
beauties and wonders of Nature and Art. He repeated with enthu- 
isasm the touching poetry of the paraphrase of the 19th Psalm, " The 
spacious firmament cn high," and he certainly did full justice to the 
character of Christ. 

The Doctor says there were apochryphal books of Jeremiah 
and Enoch, and that Matthew referred to the former. What ! did 
Matthew, an inspired man, quote an apochryphal book ? There is no 
fuller proof, that Matthew, Enoch, and other New Testament writers, 
were erring men like ourselves, without supernatural inspiration, than 
the facts stated by Gnussen, as quoted by my opponent. They were 
either imp >sed on by pious frauds, or they appealed to spurious writings 
for the \ urpose of deceiving others. 

My opponent says I deal in glaring sophistries. When we meet 
with sophistries we expose them. We never call them sophistries, 
but prove them such. When people cry out sophistry, we may safely 
conclude that they have met. with something that thsy feel to be un- 
answerable. We speak from experience. We have always found, 
that when our opponents find any arguments unanswerable, they call 
out C1 Sophistry ! glaring sophistry !" and so pass on. I have seen 
this device employed so often, that now, when I find my oppo- 
nents resorting to it, I invariably conclude that they feel themselves 
vanquished. I always regard it as a sort of a confession, on the part 
of my opponents, that they feel their ca<=e to be hopeless. 

He says I took a part of his argument, and dealt with it as if it had 
been the whole. He says the point I referred to was but " one link 
in the chain." The truth is, I noticed a number of the links in his 
chain, and found them all defective. To make a good chain every 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



131 



link must be good. If one link be bad, the chain is worthless. So 
with my opponent. He tried to make an argument out of a number 
of statements. I tested these statements, and found them good for 
nothing. There was not a sound one among them. I accordingly 
pronounced the argument unsound. The chain broke in my hands, 
and fell to pieces. 

He next tried to help himself by a comparison, but that, too, failed 
him. If I should ever attempt to prove an animal a man, because it 
had two ears, I acknowledge that I should deserve to be laughed at, or 
pitied. But my opponent will not find me attempting anything so 
foolish. If, in attempting to prove an animal a man, I should point 
out nothing in the animal but what might be found in animals 
inferior to man, I should fail, as a matter of course This was just 
what my opponent did, with regard to the Bi^le. He attempted to 
prove it divine, by reference to a number of qualities in the Book, all 
of which are to be found in purely human books. I showed this t 
and his arguments fell to the ground. My opponent's illustration is as 
absurd as his argument, and is ca'culated to excite a suspicion that 
he does not properly understand the true nature of an argument. I 
shall not call in question the depth, or the vast extent of his learning, 
afcer the proof he has given us of both, by the wonderful discovery 
that he has made, that there are other animals besides man that have 
got two ears ; but I may, perhaps, be allowed to call in question the 
propriety and good taste of making so prodigal a display of his 
learning, just at present; especially as learning is not always logic. 
I am glad to see, that in one particular, my opponent is improvmg. 
I refer to the use of foul names. It is true, he has not given up 
the use of foul names, but he shows that he is beginning to be 
ashamed of the practice ; for instead of calling me names in English, 
he has begun to do it in Latin ; a language that few understand. It 
is only right, however, that I should translate his Latin abuse. He 
says, " Ex ore asinum that is to say, " You may see that Barker is 
an ass, from his mouth." 

Dr. Berg. — I said "Ex aure." 

Mr. Barker — I thought you said "ore." 

Dr. Berg. — No, "aure" 

Mr. Barker. — A great difference, truly ! He did not say that yoa 
may know me to be an ass by my moutk, but by my ears. The one is 
as bad as the other. Both are false, and my opponent knows it. 
You may judge from the recklessness of his remarks on this subject, what 
credit is due to his statements on other subjects. If he will utter 
what he knows to he false on these matters, he is not to be trusted in 
in any thing. (Hisses and applause. Some hisses came from the 
platform) 

Wm. D. Baker, Esq., Chairman. There has been repeated dis- 
order upon this stage, and I despair of seeing the Moderators succeed 
in preserving order in the audience, when the signal of the contrary is 
given from those who should set a better example. I have been pri- 
vately appealed to, to do my duty. My only duty is to ke^p order 
upon the stage and keep silence, unless some question is referred to 
me by the Moderators. And I now wish it distinctly understood, that 
if there is any further disorder upon this stage, I am not to blame. 
(Cries of "good, good.") 



132 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE 



Mr. Barker.— -The Doctor refers again to the punishment of chil- 
dren for sins of their parents. He says that Nature and Scripture 
teach the same doctrine on this subject. The truth is, the Scriptures 
teach opposite doctrines on this subject. While one passage says, 
" God visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children," Ezekiel 
says, " This shall no more be a proverb in Israel, — ' The fathers have 
eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' The son 
shall not bear the iniquitv of the father. The soul that sinneth, it 
shall die." 

The natural laws, which cause the conduct of one man to influence 
the lot of others, even of babes unborn, bears no resemblance to the 
deeds of revenge attributed to God in the Bible. There is beneficence 
in the laws of Nature ; but none in the vengeful butcheries charged 
on God in the Bible. And we can see good reasons why the laws of 
Nature should be fixed, unvarying. If they were changeable, we 
should never know what to expect. We should be at a loss how to 
regulate our own conduct. The world would be all confusion. The 
race of man would perish. As things are, we can calculate the results 
of our actions. We know what deeds will cause pain or injury : we 
know what will yield us pleasure or profit. We have no excuse for 
wrongdoing, when we know it will injure both ourselves and others: 
we have no excuse for neglecting to do right, when we see how it 
will benefit both ourselves and our fellows. There is wisdom and 
goodness in Nature's laws ; in many of the deeds attiibuted to God in 
the Bible, there is neither. 

The doctrine, that God has cursed all the human race for the sin 
of one individual, — the doctrine of the Bible, avowed in its most re- 
volting form by my opponent, that God has linked the misery, the 
present and eternal misery of mankind, with the one trangression of 
Adam, — the doctrine that God has condemned the majority of man- 
kind to guilt and misery here, and to eternal and unutterable torments 
in fire and brimstone in hell, is the greatest blasphemy that tongue 
can utter. No one, either on earth or in hell, whether man or devil, 
however maligant or wicked he may be, could ever invent a blackers 
or more frightful blasphemy. 

He says a father may punish a child, and that unless atonement is 
made for the child, the father might continue the punishment 
eternally. We answer, there is no such fathers on earth. If my son 
got into wrong ways, .1 would try to bring him back ; and if I failed, 
I would give him up, with tears, I certainly would not try to 
lengthen out his life for ever, that I might eternally torment him. 
The cruellest father on earth would not. My opponents doctrine 
makes God worse than it is possible for the cruellest man on earth to be. 

But why does not our God suspend the laws of physiology, to pre- 
vent the drunkard's sin from injuring his offspring? We do not 
believe in any power to a ] ter or improve the laws of Nature. The 
Bible represents God as letting the children of Amalek escape for 
four hundred years, and then rising to vengeance to cut off the whole 
race. There is nothing at all resembling this in Nature. 

I have said that the tendency of the Scriptures, when accepted as 
Divine, is bad- — facts prove it to be so. Every believer who is guilty 
of adultery or polygamy, flies for shelter to the Bib'e. The Latter- 
Day Saints justify polygamy, on the ground of the example of the 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



133 



Patriarchs, and of David, and of Solomon, the wisest of men. I 
was reading, some time ago, a Presbyterian paper, which declared 
there were some sins at which God would never connive, and others, 
which he would, in certain circumstances, tolerate. He would not 
connive at idolatry, the paper said, in any case ; but that he would 
at polygamy, concubinage and slavery ! Hence the paper argued, 
that idolatry was inconsistent with a state of grace, but that polygamy, 
harlotry and slaveholding, the sum of all villanies, were not. And 
believers are right, if the Bible is right. And yet these men cast the 
first stone at Infidels for immorality ! There is no book, in the whole 
circle of literature, portions of which encourage licentiousness more 
plainly than the Old Testament Scriptures, and there is no form of 
licentiousness so gross, so extravagant, so boundless, which it does 
not encourage. (Sensation.) 

My opponent refers again to the discrepancies in the Bible. He 
says some of them are trifling. What would he say cf them if he 
found them in the Mormon Bible ? I have no doubt, that if my 
opponent could find as many and as glaring ones in the Mormon 
Bible, he would regard them as triumphant demonstrations that that 
book was an imposture and fraud. 

The Doctor speaks of Christ's character as one of unexampled 
moral granduer, as one exhibiting a combination of many good quali- 
ties, apparently opposite. Where does my opponent find the proof, 
that this wonderful combination of good qualities met in Jesus ? In 
the Gospels, he says. But the Gospels do not give the same 
character of Jesus that my opponent does. Besides, where is the 
proof that the Gospels give the true character of Christ ? The truth 
of the Gospel story has not yet been proved. That Jesus was a sane, 
good man, we do not question ; but that the accounts given of him in 
the Gospels are correct, we do not believe. They cannot all be true. 
They contradict each other. The Gospels give us two or three Christs : 
or two or three different and irreconcilable representations of Christ. 

We are told that Christ was unconcerned about his fame ; yet we 
read that he inquired privately, with apparent anxiety, of his disciples, 
what men said of him. 

He prayed for his murderers ! But did no one else ever do so 1 
We read of cases in which good men forgive their enemies, and did 
good for evil, long before the Christian era. 

The Doctor tells us the rocks were rent at the time of his death on 
fhe cross. Why take this for granted 1 Why not prove it ? He 
cannot prove those things. There is no proof of them. In fact, 
there is no proof that the Evangelists were the authors of the narra- 
tives which are called by their names. There is proof, rather, that 
they were compiled by others, and afterwards put under their names 
by ignorant or fraudulent men. There are chronological marks about 
some of them, which show that they were not written by eye- 
witnesses, but made up from floating traditions. Hence the incon- 
gruities and uncertainties of the lecord. 

But Christ's character, as given in the Gospels, is perfect. We 
think otherwise. There are sayings put into his month by the Evan- 
gelists, — sayings to his mother and others, — which a perfect man 
would not have uttered. And actions are recorded of him, which a 
perfect man would not have done. 



134 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



My opponent should proceed more logically on a matter of such 
importance. He should prove every point as he goes along. He 
should tell us what goes to make up a perfect character. He should 
prove his list and arrangement of virtues is complete ; that his idea 
of perfection is the true idea. When he talks of the s\mmetry, con- 
sistency and elevation of Chrises character, as given in the Gospels, 
he should quote passages in proof of every thimr, show that there are 
no passages which contradict those he quotes, or defy us to produce 
such. He should then show that no one, without superhuman power, 
could draw a picture of perfect moral excellence. In order to do 
this, he should show that the character of Christ had not been port- 
rayed without supernatural aid. He should show that no character 
given in the ancient or mordern writings of the heathen is perfect, 
He should show that the powers of man are not equal to the task of 
imagining or painting a perfect moral character. He should then tell 
its where he got his standard of perfection, by which to measure or 
test the character given of Jesus in the Gospels. If he has himself 
got a standard of perfect character, independent of the Bible, heupsets 
his own theory. If he has not, he upsets it. For how can he as- 
certain that the character given of Jesus in the Gospels is perfect, if 
he has no measure, test, or standard of perfection, outside the Gospels, 
with which to compare it 1 

My opponent talks as if he thought himself proving something, 
when, in truth, he has not even prepared the way for proving any 
thins;. His work is yet to begin. But we will return to his speech. 

What proof did he give us, that the character given of Christ in the 
New Testament is his true character ? None. 

What proof can he give, that the character of Christ, as given in 
the Gospels, is a genuine, real, true character of any one ? None. 

It was drawn by people well acquainted with him. 

W here is the proof ? 

But suppose it was, do people wel acquainted with public charac- 
ters, all picture them truly ? By no means. Does not prejudice or 
passion, love cr reverence, often cause them to exaggerate 1 Is it not 
common with people to think more highly of their friends and bene- 
factors than they ought to think 1 Does not affection often blin 
people to the faults or failings of their friends, and throw a more than 
natural radiance about their virtues and excellencies ? It does. 
Might it not be so in the case of Jesus and his friends ? Where is 
the proof that it was not ? But further, where is the proof that the 
portrait, given us of Jesus in the Gospels, was drawn by persons 
acquainted with him ? There is no such proof. There is proof to 
the contrary. 

But the character of Jesus is so much above all that could be im- 
agined in such a dark aud vicious age, that it is impossible any one 
could have feigned it, or painted it from fancy. 

Has my opponent, then, found out how far the powers of fancy 
can go % The truth is, nothing is more common than for genius to 
imagine and to picture forms and characters more beautiful than re- 
ality. The painter, the sculptor, and the poet, all give us forms and 
characters more beautiful and more perfect, than the real forms and 
characters in the world around them. 

Biographers and historians do the same. So far from it being 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



135 



difficult to do so, it is difficult not to do so. It is a common com- 
plaint, that writers of lives make the men they write about into angels. 
They drop their faults, and multiply and magnify their virtues. Ihey 
act on the principle of saying nothing but j>ood of the dead. The 
writers of Wesley's life say nothing ot his foolish conduct towa'ds his 
wife. The Quaker editors of George Fox's life, leave out such pas- 
sages as appear likely to lower him in the estimation of their readers. 
Our love often blinds us to the faults or failings of our friends, even 
while they are living, but how much more powerfully does affection 
operate in this way when our friends are dead ! 

Men are always imagining persons and things, and states of society, 
better or more peifeot than they really exist. The earth never saw 
a golden age, yet poets have ofcen painted it. There are no real 
Utopias on the earth, but there are many such places in books. Ther^ 
are no winged angels, perhaps, either on earth or in heaven, yet there 
are many to be seen in pictures. 

There is scarcely a poem, a biography, a history, a novel, a romance, 
or a picture gallery, which does not present fairer, more perfect, more 
beautiful characters or forms, than are met with in the world of 
realities. 

Cannot malice paint a man blacker than he is 1 Of course it can. 
It can turn a poor creature, however innocent, into a devil. And 
cannot love and gratitude paint a man fairer than he is ? Of course 
it can. It can turn the most homely creature into an angel. And 
who will prove that it might not be so in the case of Jesus and the 
Evangelists ? 

But remember, says our opponent, the character of Jesus was drawn 
in a most dark and depraved age. But we happen to know better. 
The age in which Jesus is said to have appeared, was more than 
usually enlightened, and could boast of much superior virtue. You 
need only to look into Roman and Grecian history to see this. 

Besides, the beautiful portraits and exalted sentiments of superior 
men of preceding ages had been presented, and the moral portrait 
painter of that age had access to them. There were the beautiful 
sentiments of poets and prophets — the exquisite portrait of the Patri- 
arch Job, in the 19th and 31st chapters of the book that bears his 
name, and the unsurpassed expressions of moral truth, in chapter 
sixth of the book of Micah, and elsewhere. 

The facts that present themselves in refutation of the assertions of 
my opponent, are innumerable. But it is a waste of time to dwell 
on this point. It will be soon enough to deal with the arguments of 
my opponent, when he has been so good as to bring them forward. 

The Doctor says the Jews were expecting a temporal prince as their 
Messiah, who was to raise their nation to dominion and glory ; while 
Jesus spoke only of spiritual dominion, and glory and blessedness in 
heaven, and promised his disciples only poverty, reproach, persecution, 
and death. My opponent is greatly mistaken. According to the 
jGospels, Jesus spoke of himself, at times, exactly as a temporal 
prince, and promised his followers wealth, and honours, and dominion 
here on earth. 

The Doctor will not deny that the disciples expected Jesus to set 
up an earthly kingdom, I suppose. He will not deny that they quar- 
relled among themselves about the highest places in his kingdom 1 



136 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



He will remember what two of them said to him, according to the 
story : " We trusted it was he that should deliver Israel, but now 
our hopes are blighted." 1 suppose he remembers the question his 
disciples are said to have put to him before he was finally parted from 
them : " Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" 
And finally, I suppose, he will remember it is said, that when he 
parted from them, some of his attendants cheered the disappointed 
office hunters with the assurance that their friend would come again, 
as they had seen him go away, and that he is aware that the hope of 
his speedy return was the great support of the early church. 

And now for the words of Jesus himself, as attributed to him in 
the Gospels. 

1. In Matthew 6: 33, he tells them that if they will seek the 
kingdom of God and its prosperity, all other things needed shall be 
added to them. 

In Mark 10 : 29, 30, he says 

" Verily, I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, 
or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, 
and the gospel's, but he shall receive a hundred-fold now in this time, houses, 
and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with perse-^ 
cutions; and in the world to come, eternal life." 

In Matthew 19 : 28, he says : — 

" And Jesus said unto them, Yerily, I say unto you, That ye which have 
followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne 
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes 
of Israel." 

Not a statement, then, of my opponent, will bear investigation. 
He errs on every point. 

But now let Us take a somewhat different view of the subject. He 
says the New Testament is divine. We ask for proof, and he gives 
us, instead, a number of random assertions, not one of which will bear 
examination. Tf he gives authorities, they fail him. If he refer to 
the Gospels, they contradict him. He fails at every turn. {Time 
expired, Sensation.) 

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG. 

(Applause.) When I said Ex aure asinum, I did not mean to say 
that my opponent was an ass, but that his arguments were foolish ; 
so that his eloquent denunciation of personal attacks does not apply. 
I would advise him, however, when next he has occasion to use the 
Latin language, to better understand its drift. My time was up just 
as I introduced Paine as a witness to the high moral character of 
Christ. But my opponent denies Paine. 1 took it for granted that 
they stood in the same catalogue, but it seems not. My opponent 
stands alone. He is the only one among Infidels, I have ever heard 
of, who has no word of commendation for the character of Christ ; 
who thinks that character worthy of no love or veneration. He over-^ 
tops them all, and on that bad eminence I leave him. 

Mr. Barker. — I did not say the character of Christ was unworthy 
of veneration. I believe it was worthy of reverence. 

Dr. Berg. — Did he not attempt to impair the hold which that 
character has upon every Christian ! (Applause.) All other Infidels 



REMARKS OF DR BERG. 



137 



concede that he was a good man. Will a good man lie 1 No. Then 
Christ spoke truth, and when he claims to be the Son of God, to 
work miracles, to save sinner, he claims no more than what belongs 
to him. Who will call him good, if, under the guise of seeming 
virtue, he was all his life endeavouring to establish a fable ? Would 
not this have been hypocrisy 1 But, by the concession of my oppo- 
nent's predecessors in the warfare against Christ, it is admitted that 
he was entitled to the reverence of mankind. They admit his truth, his 
goodness ; they must admit his claims, and thus they are pinned to 
the wall by the point of their own sword. What has Christ claimed ? 

1. He claimed to be a perfect teacher. 

2. He claimed to set a perfect example ; to be a model man of the 
race. 

3. He claimed to be a perfectly sinless being. 

4. He claimed that all men should love and obey him. 

h. He claimed to w r ork miracles, as no other man ever did. 

6. He claimed that in him all the prophecies of the Old Testament, 
respecting the Messiah, were fulfilled. 

7. He claimed that he would ascend to the right hand of God. 

9. He claimed that, as the Lord of heaven and earth, he would ad- 
minister the government of the world. 

10. He claimed that, as the final Judge of quick and dead, he would 
re-visit this world in power and great glory, and mete out the awards 
of eternity to all men — an eternal heaven to his friends, and an end- 
less hell to his foes. 

Let him now escape, if possible. He must either denounce Christ 
as an imposter, and retract the admission he has just made ; or de- 
nounce his own attacks upon His character as slanders the most base, 
originating with the father of lies. (Applause.) Let him choose 
which horn of this dilemma he will take. Let my opponent answer. 
How could a good man devote his life to uphold a moral government 
which my opponent stigmatizes as unjust ? How could a good man 
pretend to work miracles ; to be the central object and end of all the 
prophecies 1 Now, this whole thing hinges upon the single question, 
Was Christ sincere 1 If he wis, and all these claims were not well 
founded, then with all reverence be it spoken, he was a deluded 
fanatic. If he was not sincere, his enemies are right in calling him a 
deceiver and impostor. If he was sincere, a wilder hallucination is 
inconceivable. Think of all these claims 1 Think of Christ pro- 
claiming himself as the light of the world, and the author of a new 
life to his followers ! Think of him offering to satisfy the longings of 
the soul after immortality, calling aloud, " If any man thirst, let him 
come unto me and drink !" Think of him claiming to be one with 
God, and that all petitions addressed to him by his disciples shouJd 
be granted. Think of the prediction of his death and resurrection ; 
and then tell me if Christ was a sincere, deluded man. Where, in all 
the wildest vagaries of human insanity, can ought be found that can 
furnish a paiallel to this 1 The very idea that Christ intended to de- 
ceive, is blasphemous. But this he must assert, as I have shown, or 
else abandon his position. If he does assert it, will not every prin- 
ciple of humanity rise up in arms against the blasphemy ? (General 
Applause.) Strike down the image of Christ, and you destroy all 
future possibility of faith in any indication of goodness. You may 



138 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE, 



fill the air with pestilence, disrobe the sun of his beams, and the cala- 
mity may be borne j but, oh ! if you quench the l'ght of Christ's 
virtue, you take from us the life of life itself ! (Renewed App'ause.) 

I know that nothing is too sacred for an Infidel to asperse; I know 
that they are prepared for any atrocity ; but I would admonish my 
opponent, in advance, to beware how he heaps obloquy upon the 
blessed name of our Kins, Jehovah-Je.-us, lest he who holds the 
bre-uh of man in his control, should let him know that there is a 
God in heaven, and cause his blasphemies to freeze upon his lips. 
(Great applause.) 

I proceed now to the consideration of the external evidences of the 
divine origin of the Bible. 

The great central object of the whole book, to which all parts of it 
point with unerring sagacity, is, Christ. Of Him the New Testament 
is wiitten ; to Him the prophecies of the Old Testament pjint. Tn 
taking up the subject of the prophecies, I intend to confine myself to 
about one hundred, all of which refer directly io Christ, and all of 
which were lueially fulfilled, in His birth and mission upon earth. 
But, before proceed ng to the argument from prophecy, let me define 
the term. By a prophecy, we mean the statement of some future 
contingent event ; in other words, such a manifestation of knowledge 
as must be beyond any human sagacity, and must necessarily imply 
an extraordinary revelation. Now, here we have prophecies given 
one thousand years beforehand concerning Christ, giving time, and 
place, and date, with most minute particularity. My opponent may 
tell of his apparent contradictions, and his solecisms, but if we find 
the prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament in Christ, the conclu- 
sion is irresistible, that ail my opponent's string of objections is nothing 
but a rope of sand, which the wind will scatter. (Applause.) 

God himself uses this very argument. Read from Isaiah 41:22 : — 

"Let them bring them forth, and show us what snail happen; let them 
show the former things what they be, that we may c msider them, ana know 
the latter end of them : or declare us things for to come." 

Can Infidels do this ? Let them try. The challenge continues : — 

" Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are 
gods ; yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it toge- 
ther." Yerse 23. 

Why is not this challenge accepted 1 We have the reason in the 
24th verse ; and let Infidels mark well its pungency :— 

" Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought; an abomination is he 
that chooseth you." 

Turn now to the prediction of the coming of Christ, immediately 
following :— 

" I have raised up one from the north, and he shall come ; from the rising 
of the sun shall he call upon my name ; and he shall come upon princes as 
upon mortar, and as the potter treadeth clay. Wbo hath declared from the 
beginning, that we may know? and before time, that we may say, He is righ- 
teous] Yea, there is none that showeth ; yea, there is none that declared ; 
yea, there is none thatheareth }'Our words. The first shall say to Zion, Behold, 
behold them ; and I will give to Jerusalem one that bringeth good tidings. 
For I beheld, and there was no man; even among them, and there was no 
counsellor, that, when I asked of them, could answer a word. Behold, they 
are all vanity ; their works are nothing'; their molten images are wind and 
confusion "-—Yerses 25—29. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKiiP. 



139 



My opponent talks of the oracles of the heathen as an offset to 
these prophecies. But I defy him, in all the divinations of Pagan 
oracles, to find a single parallel. They were destitute of dignity and 
importance ; they had no connection with each other ; they related 
to no one object of central interest, and seldom, if ever, looked into 
times remore from their own. There is not a single token to show 
them genuine ; not a single fulfilment of one of them given ; not an 
argument that can be brought to save them from the condemnation 
they have obtained. But all the Bihle prophecies centre in Christ 
alone — in one peison. The central object to which they all point is, 
that Chiist whom Christians adore. 

Throughout the Patriarchal, the Jewish, and Christian dispensa- 
tions, they concur in a harmony and uniformity clearly revealing their 
divine or gin. The whole range of prophecy is of prodigious extent. 
It begins with the history of the fall of man, and ends with the con- 
summation of all things. It was uniformly cairitd on in the line of 
one people, separated from the rest of the world, ?nd made the repo- 
sitory of the divine oracles, and it centres in one g'orious Person, 
who, though spoken of as " the seed of the woman," and the Son of 
man," is still represented as superior to angels and men — as far above 
all principality and power, as the heir of all things by whom Jehovah 
made the worlds — as the Son of God, equal with God, the express 
image of His person, and brightness of the Father's glory, one in 
essence, distinct in person, and, with the ever- fjftssed Spirit, consti- 
tuting the Triune God, who is over all, blessed for evermore. Of 
such transcendant dignity is Jesus Christ possessed. 

I proceed now to offer, hurriedly, a series of prophecies, all of 
which met their fulfilment in our Divine Redeemer. It was predicted 
that Messiah should come. Four thousand years afterwards, he did 
eome. In ancient times, there were four monarchies in immediate 
succession ; each one more glorious than its predecessor. It was fore- 
told that Messiah should be born under the last. He was born under 
the Roman Empire, it was predicted that he should come to the 
second temple. He did come to the temple, and preached in it. It 
was predicted that he should come before the sceptre departed from 
Judah. In the very year of his birth, -the Jews were taxed by Ca^ar, 
as a sign that the national independence had passed away for ever. 
{Time up. General applause. The large audience then quietly 
dispersed.) 



SEVENTH EVENING. 
REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER, 

It may be well, before we proceed with the discussion, to review 
the ground we have gone over. My opponent undertook to prove, 
first, that the Bible is divinely inspired. He was to give us, first, 
internal evidence ; secondly, external evidence of this. Whether he 
has done so, you are to judge. 1 do not, myself, recollect any proof 
he has given of either kind. He has not even told us what consti- 



140 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



tutes internal or external evidence. He has given us many assertions, 
but I cannot, see that all he has said furnishes materials to make an 
argument. However, I will not dwell on this. 

I undertook to show that the Bible is not divinely inspired, in the 
Orthodox sense. The Orthodox definition of divine inspiration is, 
such divine aid as preserves the writers from error or mistake. To 
prove, then, that a book contains errors or mistakes, is to prove that 
it is not divinely inspiied. I have proved that the Bible contains 
errors, and that it abounds in them. I have proved that it contains 
contradictions, — contradictions about God, about duty, about matters 
of fact ; gross, palpable contradictions. 

I have proved that it contains errors in Geology, Astronomy, Me- 
teorology, Botany, Zoology, Biography, and on every other great subject 
on which it treats. 

I have proved that it teaches a false and blasphemous theology, and 
a low, a sensual, and a savage morality. In other words, I have proved 
that portions of the book teach the most blasphemous and immoral 
doctrines that ignorance or depravity could imagine. I have shown 
that in no book can more decisive traces of a human origin be found, 
than in the Bible. I have shown that the book not onlv contains no 
internal evidence of a divine origin, but all possible evidence to the, 
contrary. 

We have shown tfiat there is no external evidence of the super- 
human origin of the Bible. There cannot be external evidence of the 
divine origin of a book which abounds in contradictions. What is 
called external evidence, I have shown to be mere hearsay, — hearsay 
of the most unworthy kind, — the testimony of convicted, of avowed, 
of systematic, wholesale deceivers — deceivers on principle. 

I am not aware that my opponent has detected me in one error, 
answered one of my objections, or refuted one of my arguments. Nor 
am I aware that I have allowed anything put forward as an argument, 
or as part of an argument, to pass unanswered. So far, we have 
made good our principles. We now proceed with the discussion. I 
was replying to the speech of my opponent. 

You heard from my opponent, that Paine regarded Jesus as a vir- 
tuous and benevolent man, and*the morality he taught as amiable and 
good. If you were to read his writings, you would find maiy other 
good things there. The priests are afraid of the people reading them, 
lest they should be converted by their sound sense and powerful argu- 
ment. The reason why they call him a drunkard, is not because he 
was one, but to prevent men from reading his writings. 

One word more in regard to Paine's character. Does my opponent 
think that to prove Paine a drunken profligate would be to prove the 
Bible divine, or our views of the Bible erroneous ? If so, he must 
think that to prove a professor or a minister of Christianity a drunkard 
or a debauchee, would be to prove the Bible false. And what would 
be the result then ? We should have proofs by hundreds of thousands. 
All we should have to do, in that case, would be to name Bishop such 
a one, or Elder such a one, or Brother such a one, and the doctrine 
of Bible inspiration would be overthrown. One of the most drunken 
and licentious classes of men in England, if not the most drunken is 
the Methodist preisthood. You know the opinion entertained by 
Prostestants of the Catholic priesthood. Bad as it is, it has been, if 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



141 



it is not even now, too true. Jesus, according to the Gospel, spoke of 
the c'ergy as whited sepulchres, fair outwardly, but inwardly full of 
all uncleanness. The same is true of the clergy now, we imagine. 
But does this prove the Bible merely human ? It does not. 

A word about drunkenness. The Bible gives people liberty to use 
wine and strong drink; and we know how the use of such drinks 
generates the appetite that leads to drunkenness. One passage even 
says : — " Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine 
to him that is of heavy heart. Let him drink and forget his poverty, 
and remember his misery no more." (Prov. 2:6,1.) And a man 
must drink very freely to do that. Another passage represents Jesus 
as making wine for a marriage feast. The guests had finished what 
had been provided by the host, and Jesus, according to the story, 
made — how much do you think 1 — about one hundred and thirty 
gallons. This, supposing the number of guest to have been about 
twenty, would be six gallons apiece. (Hisses. Laughter. Cries of 
" Oh ! Oh ! ") A liberal supply for men who had already drunk 
what the host had provided. 

Another passage says : " Drink no longer water, but use a little 
wine for thy stomach's sake, and thy frequent infirmities." Is it to 
be wondered at, that lovers of the Bible so often are lovers also of the 
bottle, and slaves to intemperance 1 Those passages are among the 
strongholds of the di inking system ; and will be so, so long as the 
Bible is regarded as divine. 

Now, look at Nature as a guide in this matter. She utters her 
most urgent protests against its use. The taste, the stomach, the 
brain, the nerves, the muscles, all cry out against it. The burning 
throat, the aching head, the heavy eye, the reeling brain, the subse- 
quent depression of feelings, ail are God's voice speaking in man's 
nature against the use of the destructive drink. Let men's attention 
be called to the voice of Nature or of God ; let their minds be en- 
lightened with respect to the fearful ravages intoxicating drinks make 
when taken into the system, and the use, the sale, the manufacture of 
the drink will cease through all the abodes of man. Our law T . the law of 
our nature, and the laws of Nature generally, go unchangeably and 
for ever against intoxicating drinks ; and no man can name any ex- 
cuse for either drunkenness or moderate drinking, who is acquainted 
with them. 

T grant, portions of the Bible speak against drunkenness ; But it 
does not say what drunkenness is. (Hisses. Laughter. Ciies of 
" Oh ! ") It gives no rule by which a man may know when he is 
drunk. (Hisses.) It allows people to use the drink in undefinable 
quantities, and drunkenness naturally follows. Our law is against 
the use of the bewitching and destructive article altogether. A 
believer, therefore, in natural law, is most inconsistent, if he drinks. 

But let us not be understood as allowing the changes made against 
Mr. Paine. In Paine's day, almost all drunk. Paine was not an ex- 
ception. But he appears to have been more temperate than his 
neighbours, as unbelievers generally are. (Hisses and applause.) 

The Doctor says, I traduce the character of Christ. I do not. To 
speak of a good man as imperfect, is not to traduce. 

But I speak of it as not worthy of the reverence of mankind. I 
do not. The character of every gocd man, and especially of every 



142 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLB. 



brave reformer and philanthropist, is worthy of reverence, even if it 
should not be free from imperfections. 

He says, if Christ was a good man, he must have spoken the truth 
on all occasions, and the claims he put forth must have been valid. 

1. It does not follow. Good men may err. 

2. Besides, there is no proof, that Jesus spoke all that the Gospels 
represent him as speaking. There is no proof to the contrary. 

3. Apply the Doctor's reasoning to the case of Swedenborg. We 
have the fullest evidence that he was a good man. He was, besides, 
a philosopher. Yet the Doctor does not allow his claims. He claimed 
to be inspired. He believed that God had granted him innumerable 
revelations. His revelations, too, were of a pure and benevolent ten- 
dency. He even foretold future events, if testimony is worthy of any 
credit, and read men's hearts. He knew what was taking place in 
distant lands, at the moment it was taking place. There were none 
of the common indications of insanity about him, but marks of the 
hishest intelligence, purity, disinterestedness, philanthropy, and even 
piety. For he was a Christian, though a philosopher. All this is 
attested in a manner in which the Gospel story is not attested. Yet 
we do not admit his claims. We believe he was in error, to some 
extent. There were laws of Nature at work in his case which he did 
not fully understand. His belief is supernaturalism, his erroneous 
Ciiru^tian philosophy, led him to misinterpret his experience, and to 
put forth claims in behalf of his doctrines which w T ere not valid. It 
has been so with thousands. It might be so with some of the found- 
ers of Christianity. But in there case, we do not know what claims 
they put forth. In the case of Swedenborg, we do. 

The Doctor says, Jesus claimed to be a sinless being, a perfect 
teacher, a perfect example, entitled to universal obedience, a worker 
of miracles, such as no other man ever worked, &c. We ask, 1. 
Where is the proof that he put forth those claims ? The Gospels 
say so. But where is the proof that the Gospels are strictly true ? 
Where is the proof that the writers of the Gospels kneiv the truth on 
the subjects on which they wrote 1 2. Where is the proof that they 
were faithful witnesses ? 3. Where is the proof that the Gospels 
have come down to us uncorrupted ? There is no proof of any of 
these p »ints. There is no proof to the contrary. There are no good 
grounds for the common belief ; there are the strongest reasons for 
rejeciing it ; reasons literally innumerable. 

I must either denounce Jesus as an enthusiast or impostor, says 
the Doctor, or acknowledge him a Divine and supernatural personage. 

Not at all. It is only necessary to suppose that he was a g>od, 
kind man, a preacher of righteousness, to the best of his knowledge, 
and a friend and benefactor of the poor, and all the rest can be ac* 
counted for, without difficulty. We know how churches magnifiy 
and glorify their founders, — how rapidly fabulous stories spring up 
about popular leaders, even whiie they live, and how much more 
rapid ! y they multiply and gither round the memories of the good and 
great when they are dead. A thousand stories of miracles are in cir- 
culation respecting Father Matthew; and the number may be doubled 
after his death. Stories of miraculous works are to be found in the 
Lives of Wesley, Bramwell, and other Method : st ministers. These 
miraculous stories sprung up more rapidly formerly, and multiplied 



REMARKS. OF JOSEPH BARK Kit. 143 

much faster. It was so in every country of antiquity. All the great 
men were miracle-workers, in the estimation of the masses. The 
early histories of Greece and Rome are full of the miraculous stories. 
So are the ancient, writings of other nations. In earliest ages, men 
made their benefactors into Gocls. In latter times, they were con- 
tent with making them into sons of God. Miraculous powers and 
supernatural gifts were ascribed to them. Days were set apart for 
their worship, and priesthoods established to attend to their interests. 

All these things could take place in times of ignorance and cred- 
ulity, without fraud, or with comparatively little fraud. So it might 
be with Jesus. It was enough, that he was a good man and a re- 
former ; a friend of freedom and a friend of man ; an enemy of the 
priests and sectarians of his day, and a stern denouncer of their false 
theology, their vicious morality, and their deceitful, selfish, and in- 
tolerant doings. The love and admiration of his followers, without 
any ill design, would make him first a prophet, then a worker of 
miracles, then a being of supernatural origin, or son of God, and even 
God himself. It was as natural for the, love and admiration of his 
friends to make him a God, as for the hate and rage of the priests 
and sectarians to make him a devil. Both were natural. 

When once exalted, all the rich sayings afloat in society, and all 
the best maxims of antiquity, would be atttibuted to him, and mixed 
with the traditions of his own sayings. Tales of miracles would grow 
as rapidly and as plenteously as flowers in spring. Those tales of 
miracles and traditions of his sayings, would in time be written down. 
The writers might be no cheats. They might be as firm believers in 
the traditions of the churches which they collected, as the churches 
themselves. One writer would copy another, making such alterations 
as tradition or his own conjectures might seem to require. The 
p'ain matter-of-fact writers would compose such books as those of 
Matthew and Mark. The more imaginative, would colour his nar- 
rative, and give us such a story as that ascribed to Luke ; while the 
dieamy, poetica', transcendental philosopher, would produce such a 
gospel as that of John. 

Mark, we do not say the canomcal Gospels were produced in this 
way, though we are inclined to believe they were ; but only that they 
might be thus produced. The facts we have javen, show that the 
representations of Jesus, of his sayings and doings, found in the Gos- 
pels, nvght all be accounted for, wi;hout either supposing that Jesus 
was a fanatic, or an impostor ; I am sorry the time is so shot, or I 
could give a thousand facts, (hisses and contemptuous laughter,) both 
from ancient and from modern writers, as well as from the experience 
and observations of living witnesses, in confirmrttion of this view of 
the case. 

But how came the Gospels to bear the names of Apostles of Jesus, 
if they were not composed by them 1 We answer, how came the 
Apostles' creed, the Apostolical constitutions, the apocryphal gospels 
and epistles to be called after the Apostles ? We answer : — 

1. Books often get the names of men who are not their authors, 
where there is no intentional fraud. It was thus in ancient times, 
especially. But, — 

2. At a very early period, fraud began to be practised in the church, 
and that on a very large scale. Men wrote books without end, and 



144 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE, 

gave them out as the works of Jesus, Thomas, Nicodemus, or any 
one whose name was in high esteem. Hence, a great number of Gospels 
appeared, and still a greater number of Epistles. Those pious frauds 
increased with amazing rapidity. Falsehood was held to be lawful, 
if it tended to the praise and glory of God. To prove this, I need 
only quote another passage from Mosheim. He says : (Here Mr. 
Barker's time expired.) 

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG. 

I am anxious to proceed in the positive argument, as the time is 
urgent, but my opponent seeks to cover the real point at issue with 
such a web of perversion, that I must needs brush it away. It is 
evident that he begins to find that his reckless assertions and bold 
blasphemies are not enough to make us attach importance to discre- 
pancies which it requires only a little candour to reconcile. In the 
revelation of his will to man,. God made use of men as his instruments, 
but he did not necessarily change their fallible nature. The prophets 
and evangelists knew the great truth they were charged to communi- 
cate ; they communicated that, and circumstantial variations are no 
objections to the substantial truth of their narrative. Thus, one pas- 
sage states that Judas bought the field, and another that the priests 
bought it ; but such circumstantial discrepancies occur in the ordinary 
life of men. My opponent, with his usual unfairness, substitutes 
another question for the real one. The real question is, was the field 
purchased with Judas's money 1 The case is wholly different from the 
murder case supposed by my opponent. Let us examine the three 
witnesses. Matthew, who was an honest man, and had abandoned 
a lucrative business to follow Christ, first testifies. What does he 
say 1 Was the field bought 1 Yes. " And they (the chief priests) 
took council, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers 
in." What says Luke '? His testimony is given in the first chapter 
of Acts : — " Now, this man purchased a field with the reward of ini- 
quity ; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his 
bowels gushed out." 

Now let me ask my opponent if, in the ordinary transactions of life, 
property is bought with a man's money, he is not sa ; d to buy it \ Is 
a man a liar for saying he has bought a horse, when some friend or 
agent bought it for him ? The field was bought by the chief priests, 
but it w T as bought with Judas's money. The two witnesses state the 
same fact, with circumstantial variation. The third witness, Zechar- 
iah, says he himself bought it. " And the Lord said unto me, cast it 
unto the potter ; a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I 
took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them unto the potter, in the 
house of the Lord." Zechariah i 1 : 13. 

Here is a clear and distinct prophetical enunciation of the fact, four 
hundred years before it occured, that the Lord was to be sold for thir- 
ty pieces of silver, paid as the price of his blood. Was ever the fallacy 
of Infidel blasphemy so glaringly apparent. (Applause.) The Bible, 
itself, furnishes unanswerable arguments to his wretched quibbles and 
contemptible sophistry. And so, when in one place, it is said that 
God tempted David, and, in another, that Satan tempted him, there is 
on substantial contradiction ; all that is needed to understand the 



eBmarks of dr. berg. 



l$ge, is a little candour. David was lifted up by national pride to 
number the people. He was led away of his own lusts and enticed. 
Does not James tell us, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am 
tempted of God." ? And so, to my opponent's objection, I answer 
that Satan stirred up David, but that he was permitted to do so ; and, 
in ordinary language, God. is said to do what he permits. So my op- 
ponent's argument is scattered, as wind bkrws the smoke from the dia- 
mond. This may not satisfy my opponent, but it will satisfy any one 
but he who is determined not to believe. (Applause.) 

My opponent speaks again of the foul names which 1 have called 
him. I answer, that if the Bible calls certain things blasphemy, I 
must use the term, (applause); and if he should undertake again to 
translate Latin, I must express the hope that he will show some ac- 
quaintance with the real drift of the language. As to his attack on 
the ministry, I should be mortified if a single word of commendation 
had been bestowed on them from the lips which aspersed the blessed 
Saviour. I know that they are not perfect, but I should be sorry if 
one who spends his time in traducing our Master should exempt min- 
isters from blame. (Applause.) It would be evidence that we did not 
resemble our Blessed Master ; if he was called Devil, and Beelzebub, 
the Prince of Devils, what must his servants expect 1 Our office is 
that of ambassadors of Christ, and it is our lot to be often called upon 
to answer these stereotyped calumnies. He speaks of sordid motives. 
To this I might make a rejoinder which would make even his boasted 
equanimity fail, but I can afford to be generous. The pulpit of this 
country is filled by men of talent, learning and labouriousness, equal 
to what is displayed in any other profession, What lawyer, or phy- 
sician, would be content with the average stipend of the clergy ? That 
average in the United States is about 400 dollars per annum. (Ap- 
plause.) What man in any other profession would think that suffici- 
ent pay ? Sirs, I tell you, if temporal emolument, honour and dollars, 
were the sole inducements to enter this profession, there is not a man 
deserving the name of minister who would not be as great a fool as 
any Atheist that ever lived, if he did not abandon his calling on the 
spot ! (Applause.) But we look to eterniiy. We believe that this 
book is an authentic revelation. We know it is the word of God, 
and if, by the blessing of God, we can be instrumental in leading 
men to Christ, w r e are repaid ; this is oar joy and crown of re joicing ! 
(Applause.) Reproach, contempt, persecution, calumnies, and the 
intrinsic difficulties of our profession ; distress, poverty, sometimes 
ingratitude incident to our calling, are honours which we wear thank- 
fully. The Infidels say that we want the fleece of the flock ! The 
Infidels say that Christ means us when he says, Beware of false 
prophets, who come in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are rave- 
ning wolves." These words go like drawn svvords to the heart of 
the Infidel. (Tremendous applause.) 

Who are these w T olves in sheep's clothing ? Who, but the men 
who talk of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, when in their very souls 
they know, and when the very language of my opponent shows that 
he regards us as oppressors, who are to be put down, had they the 
power. He and his associates would silence the vo ; ce of the pulpit, 
and hurl every minister of the Gospel into the lowest dungeons of 
oppression and contempt, if they did not consign them to the gallows 

K 



146 



DISCUSSION OX THE BIBLE. 



or the lamp post, as in those palmy days when Infidel republicans 
bathed their swords in the heart's blood of all who would not pro- 
nounce their infernal Shibboleth. An Infidel, not one hundred yards 
from where I stand, was heard to declare recently, on a public oc- 
casion, that the Reign of Terror was a reign of terror only to priests 
and kings, but a reign of peace for the people. Is this the heaven 
they promise us, when they get their much-talked-of ascendency ? 
Once, in the cities of France, God did in judgment let loose the pas- 
sions of Atheistic despisers of his truth, that they might scourge with 
scorpions the nation that had despised his covenant. Your Infidel 
reformers are the ravening wolves in sheep's clothing. Beware of 
them ! They come with honeyed words to tell you that they are 
slandered when the right of the people to rule is questioned. They 
are the friends of the dear people, and such were Robespierre and 
Danton and Marat, until the dear people, or what was left of them,, 
paid back the debt of charity, and sent the bloody instruments of 
wrath to plague their abhorred inventors. 

He would have you believe that Infidels are the true republicans : 
but what kind of a republic is that, whose laws rest merely on human 
authority '? on hum an authority, too, in its most degraded forms. 
He finds no fault with us, so far as we advocate moral reforms, but 
oar conservatism he cannot endure. I thank him for that statement. 
Our conservatism is one of the bulwarks of the land. It has contri- . 
buted, with the conservative statemanship of the purest statesmen in 
the country, to save the United States from the horrors of Infidel rad- 
ical treason, with its long train of internecine and servile conflicts 
and carnage. 

Every true patriot will join in the prayer, that the pulpit may be 
preserved from Infidel contamination, (applause.) Infidel machana- 
fcions, and Infidel mercies. 

My opponent thought fit to take to himself what I said of the 
tendency of Infidelity to immorality. My remarks had nothing to 
do with his personal character. If I should indulge in such remarks, 
I should wrong myself ; but I did mean to say, that the tendency of 
Infidelity is to unbounded licentiousness. This he has not answered, 
and dares not approach. (Applause) But I find that he has not 
yet done with the ark. (Laughter, and cries of " O, that ark !") 
He is not satisfied that the persons on board could have attended 
to sixty-six animals in a second. Ridiculous perversion ! In his 
random estimate of Hitchcock, he seems to take him without the 
proof he requires for the Bible. (Applause.) If he had one-half the 
faith in the Bible that he has in Hitchcock, he would at once aban- 
don his Infidelity. (Applause.) I have shown to you, by quoting 
Bufflm, that there were only between two hundred and two hundred 
and fifty different genera of animals, and it is not to be expected that 
Noah would act according to the modem divisions in zoology. Noah 
had no opportunity to consult Hitchcock. (Laughter.) Everybody 
know 7 s, that of monkeys, there is an interminable variety ; but only 
two or three original types. Taking my opponent's estimate of the 
number, there are one hundred and twenty thousand different kinds 
of insects. How long do you think it would take Mrs. Noah to clean 
after them 1 (Laughter, loud and renewed cheering.) Then there 
are at least one thousand mammalia— -well, the whale is counted 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



147 



among these. And bow many whales do you think Noah had in his 
ark ? (Great laughter.) I will settle this matter of Noah — let my 
opponent laugh at it, as Noah's contemporaries did before him, but I 
will make him drop it, or send it to keep company with Solomon's 
seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. (Great laughter.) 
The ark was four hundred and fifty feet long, seventy-five wide, and 
•forty -five high, at the lowest estimate, and it was divided into three 
stories, of fifteen feet each. But at another estimate it would be nine 
times as large as this hall, three and three-fourths its width, and fifteen 
feet high in each story, from the floor to the ceiling. If it was not 
big enough to hold all the different animals, even including the one 
hundred and twenty thousand insects, Noah was not so wise a man, 
nor as good a carpenter, as he has been taken to be. Then, as to 
elephants, would he not take care to economise space by selecting 
young ones ? In this hall, there are two thousand two hundred 
people, and if men occupied only the same space in the ark, that 
vessel would have held fifty-nine thousand four hundred passengers, 
with ample space to stow away provisions, and with ample accom- 
modations. Take into consideration that very few animals are larger 
than man, that the mass of them are smaller, that the insects would 
be smothered in a small space, that the species of fish and amphibious 
animals are not in the invoice, and the whole aggregate of genera, by 
my opponent's own showing, amounts to only one thousand, and most 
of them small. I cannot conceive where the difficulty is in this 
Scripture account of the ark ; but I leave it here, having shown that 
my opponent has dealt in blank assertions, and that his estimate is 
exaggerated. 

He says that the Evangelists did not compose the Gospels, but 
that these are patched up from floating traditions. Can he sustain 
himself by thus making unsupported assertions ? Traditions ! No ! 
the Gospels were written either by eye-witnesses, or good men, who 
had both seen and heard them. Matthew was a friend of Christ, 
though he had been a publican, had been in attendance on his person, 
sat as a disciple under his teachings. Mark was the familiar com- 
panion of Peter, and probably wrote under his direction. Luke was 
the friend of Paul, and a man of learning and research, and on terms 
of confidential intimacy with the Apostles ; besides, he was an eye- 
witness of many of the facts which he narrated. John was the dis- 
ciple whom Jesus loved, on whose breast he leaned, in whose closest 
intimacy he lived. Did these men patch up their story from tradition f 
What need had they of traditions ? If they did, is it not a marvel 
that these four men, writing at different times, in different places, 
should have stated the same truths with so much substantial agree- 
ment and so little of circumstantial variety ] (Great applause.) 

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 

The Doctor says Matthew w r as an apostle. 

Dr. Berg. — No, sir, I said he was a disciple. 

Mr. Barker. — I understood you to say- apostle. The Bible says 
he was. But where is the proof that Matthew was either a disciple 
or an apostle 1 Where is the proof that the Gospel which bears 
the name of Matthew was written by a disciple of Jesus at all ? 
There is none. 



148 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



The Doctor says Luke wrote one of the Gospels. If he will prove 
that, he will have done something for his cause. Will he try ? 

He says God did not change the nature of the fallible men whom 
he chose as instruments to write his word ; but that he preserved 
them from error. The fact, however, is, as we have shown, that the 
writers of the Bible fell into the grossest errors, and even penned the 
most palpable contradictions. 

He talks of circumstantial variations again. I repeat, the passages 
we have quoted are specimens, not of variations, but contradictions, 
errors, immoralities, blasphemies of the worst description. 

He says the important question in the case of Judas is, whether the 
field was bought. But where is the proof ? There is none. If the 
fact of buying the field was the only one of importance, why are all 
the authors so careful to tell us who bought it 1 Did they all go off 
into unimportant matters just to make contradictions ? Whether 
the matters were important or not, it was of importance, if they meant 
to be believed, that they should not tell opposite tales. 

He asks, If property is bought with a man's money, is he not said 
to buy it 1 We answer, No. It is only when the person authorises 
or directs the purchase, that he is said to make it himself. I lose 
my money, and another finds it, and buys a field with it, no one would 
say I had bought it ; so, if I throw my money away, or give it to 
some one. It is only when I employ, commission, or command a 
person to buy a thing for me, that 1 can be said to buy it. Is a man 
a liar, asks my opponent, if he says he has bought a house, when 
some agent has bought it for him % No ; but were the chief priests 
the agents of Judas ] Did they act under his commission or instruc- 
tions ? Prove that, and you have accomplished something. The 
field was bought with Judas's money, my opponent says. But that 
does not alter the matter. If the Doctor should kill a man with a 
pistol, which another had lost, or thrown away, who would have to 
answer for the murder — the Doctor, or the man who had happened 
once to own the pistol ? A disputant is in trying circumstances, 
when he can have recourse to such reasoning as this. 

He says it is only a circumstantial variation ! We call it a flat con- 
tradiction. But God would not fall into the slightest error. 

In quoting the passage from Zechanah, the Doctor left out a part, — 
the part which shows that Zechariah spoke of himself, and not of 
Judas. But Zechariah say r s nothmg of buying a field. His words 
have no reference either to Judas or his times. 

My opponent says, God permitted Satan to tempt David, and that 
God may be said to do what he permits others to do. This would 
make God answerable for every crime committed, for he permits 
them all. This is carrying blasphemy further than even the Bible 
carries it. But the Doctor gives no proof that Satan tempted David 
by God's permission. The Bible no more says so, than it says that 
God tempted David by Satan's permission. The case is this : the 
Bible proposes to tell us who tempted David. Who was it 1 God, 
savs Samuel. Satan, says Ezra. Neither , says James. A threefold 
contradiction. Yet men are found who call it a divine revelation ! 
The Doctor's attempt to reconcile these contridictions of the Bible, 
shows how easy it would be, in any day, to write a better book ; but 
that is not the Doctor's business. His task is tj prove the divinity 
of the book already written. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



149 



He says he hopes, if I should undertake to translate Latin again, I 
shall show some acquaintance with the real drift of the Language. 
Does he mean to say I mistranslated his Latin 1 I have never 
boasted of learning. I have not even pretended to understand Latin. 
But if I cannot, in the estimation of competent judges, translate 
Latin, of any age, as rapidly and as correctly as he, I will retire from 
the debate, and allow him to be proclaimed the victor. 

To prepare the way for a discourse on the salaries - of ministers, he 
said I had charged them with sordid motives. I had made no such 
charge. But if I had, I might have quoted his example in justifi- 
cation. He has charged us with base motives repeatedly. Nay, 
more, he is accustomed to charge the majority of the clergy with base 
motives. He habitually charges the Catholic priesthood with sordid 
motives. How, then, can he refuse the Catholics, or me, the right to 
charge the Prostestant clergy with sordid motives ? 

He says the wolves in sheep's clothing, alluded to by Christ, aie 
the men who talk of Liberty, Equality Fraternity ! Are all, then, 
who speak of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, wolves in sheep's clothing? 
Must people then, to prove that they are not wolves in sheep's cloth- 
ing, cease to speak in favour of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity ? 
Does the Doctor mean to say, that he never speaks in favour of 
Liberty, Equality, or Fraternity ? Are we to look for the friends" of 
truth and humanity among those only who speak against Liberty, 
Equality, and Fraternity, and in favour of Despotism, and Injustice, 
Tyranny, and Cruelty ; If this is the rule by which we are to judge 
who are wolves, we must acknowledge that the clergy will come off in 
tirumph. It is certain enough, that there are not many of them that 
can be charged with speaking in favour of Liberty, Equality, and 
Fraternity, either in Europe or America. Any number can be found 
who can speak in favour of Despotism, Tyranny, Slaveholding, 
Fugitive Slave Laws, and man-hunting ; but hardly two in ten 
thousand can be found, that speak in favour of Freedom, Justice, and 
Human Brotherhood. And even those two will be found to be de- 
nounced by the rest, as heretics or unbelievers. It is too true, that 
the parties changeable with talking in favour of Freedom, Justice, and 
Humanity, are heretics and Infidels. . The clergy, every where, are 
the friends of despotism, the props of tyranny. In Europe, they prop 
up autocracy, monarchy, and aristocracy, with all their iniquities and 
cruelties. They justify their blackest and their bloodiest deeds. It is 
the same here. An American genleman worte a work, long ago, en- 
titled, " The American Church the Bulwark of American Slavery" — 
the worst, the vilest, the most inhuman and atrocious form of des- 
potism on the face of the earth. If every one must be taken for a 
wolf in sheep's clothing, who cannot cease to speak in favour of 
Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, and begin to speak in tavour of 
Despotism, and Tyranny, Injusticej and Inhumanity, let me be taken 
for a wolf in sheep's clothing for ever. (Applause.) I do not envy 
my opponent the distinction he claims, for himself and his brethren, 
of never speaking for Freedom, Equality, and Human Brotherhood. If 
he thinks it an honour, let him keep it. Such honours would not sit 
lightly on us. 

My opponent alludes to me as having said, that the reign of terror 
was a reign of terror only to priests and kings, and a reign of peace to 



150 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



the people. He did not bear my remarks, or perhaps he would have 
given them more correctly. My statement was, that Thomas Carlyle 
had said, in his history of the French Revolution, that the list of per- 
sons executed during the reign of terror, framed with the greatest care, 
by a friend of the suffering party, did not contain two thousand names ; 
that the reason why the execution of this number made so much 
noise in the world, was, that the victims belonged to those classes 
who had the means of complaining, the means of making themselves 
heard, the classes which had the command of the press, the pulpit, 
the tribune ; that two hundred thousand might have been butchered 
or starved to death, and nothing been heard of it, if they had been of 
the poor, oppressed classes, whom it is customary to plunder and 
destroy ; but that the death of two thousand of the rich, the aristo- 
cratic or privileged classes, makes all the pulpits and presses on earth 
cry out. I also stated, that Carlvle had said, that looking back for 
generations, no period could be found, when the people of France at 
large, the thirty-five millions of the labouring classes, enjoyed so much 
peace, or lived so happily, as during this reign of terror. I did not 
vouch for the truth of this. I could not ; but I believe it to be true. 
It at least shows that there are two sides to this celebrated reign of 
terror, as well as to the French Revolution generally. There never 
w r as a movement for freedom and right, either in Church or State, 
which the priests and despots did not slander and belie. To the 
charge of my opponent, that we wish to hurl ministers of the Gospel 
into dungeons, or hang them on the gallows, we can offer no re- 
futation. When he speaks of the past or the present, we can deal 
with him ; but when he takes his flight into the future, we must let him 
go alone. We know who they are that put men in dungeons, and 
plead for the gallows noiv ; and we know who have distinguished 
themselves by slandering, imprisoning, torturing, hanging, burning men 
for demanding freedom of thought and of speech in the past ; but we 
have no prophetic powers to enable us to tell what shall be in the 
future. 

My opponent has had much to say about the comparative merits of 
Christians and unbelievers, with respect to moral conduct, and the 
time has come to discuss the point ; but as this is a delicate point, we 
shall let the Christians bear witness of themselves and of each other. 
It is not necessary to remind you what Protestant writers say of the 
immorality, the deceit, the intolera^, the treachery, and the cruelty 
of Catholics. Your Protestant booKs are full of these things. I will 
confine myself chiefly to what Protestant writers say of Protestants. 
I refer you, first, to the testimony of Mr. Stephen Colwell, one of 
your own citizens, a man in high esteem, as given in his late work, 
entitled " New Themes." He tells us that Protestants are the most 
covetous, the most devoted worshippers of wealth, to be found. No- 
where, says he, are competition, love of gain, love of power, the desire 
to rule, to domineer over others, so rife as in Protestant countries, and 
in members of churches. Nowhere, he assures us, are the masses 
more neglected or worse treated He assures us that none are so con- 
servative, so opposed to reforms, so set against investigations into the 
cause of our social evils, or any plans for curing those evils, and raising 
the masses of mankind to intelligence, virtue, freedom, independence 
and happiness. He places the men of the world, and even avowed 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



151 



and notorious unbelievers, higher in the moral scale, than the Protes- 
tant churches, and the Protestant clergy. I cannot, at present, give 
his words ; but I will give you them hereafter. 

I will give you next, a quotation from the N. Y. Evangelist, a 
Prestbyterian paper : — 

" To the shame of the Church it must be confessed, that the foremost in all 
our philanthropic movements, in the interpretation of the spirit of the age, in 
the practical application of genuine Christianity, in the reformation of abuses 
in high and in low places, in the vindication of the rights of man and in prac- 
tically redressing his wrongs, in the moral and intellectual regeneration of the 
race, are the so-called Infidels in our land. 

" The Church has pusilanimously left, not only' the working oar, but the 
very reins ot salutary reform in the hands of men she denounces as inimical to 
Christianity, and who are practically doing, with all their might, for Human- 
ity's sake, that which the Church ought to be doing for Christ's sake ; and if 
they succeed, as succeed they will, in abolishing 1 slavery, banishing rum, res- 
training licentiousness, reforming abuses, and elevating the masses, then must 
the recoil on Christianity be disastrous. Woe, woe, woe to Christianity, when 
Infidels by force of nature, or the tendency of the age, get ahead of the Church 
in morals and in the practical work of Christianity ! In some instances, they 
are already far in advance. In the vindication of Truth, Righteousness, and 
Liberty, they are the pioneers, beckoning to a sluggish Church to follow in 
the rear." 

I will read another quotation from the N. Y. Independent, a paper 
of the same denomination : — . 

"Among all the earnest-minded young men, who are at this moment leading 
in thought and action in America, we venture to say that four-fifths are scep- 
tical even of the great historical facts of Christianity. 

"What is told as Christian doctrine by the churches, claims none of their 
consideration, and there is among them a general distrust of the clergy, as a 
class, and an utter disgust with the very aspect of Christianity and of church 
worship. 

"This scepticism is not flippant; little is said about it. It is not a pecu- 
liarity alone of the radicals and fanatics; most of them are men of calm and 
even balance of mind, and belong to no clas3 of ultraists. It is not worldly 
and selfish. Nay, the doubters lead in the bravest and most self-denying en- 
terprises of the day." 

It has always been thus. The clergy and their followers have always 
been the enemies of reform and progress ; the friends of superstition 
and tyranny ; the upholders and the advocates of absurd creeds, bad 
laws, bloody punishments, unjust and inhuman institutions, and un- 
conscionable slanderers and persecutors of the advocates of truth and 
reform. 

But we will leave this subject for the present. We were speaking, 
when we closed our last speech, of the arts employed by the early 
Christians to bring men to receive their doctrine as divine. We wish 
to finish our remarks on this subject. The falsehoods they propoga- 
ted were most extravagant ; the literary frauds they perpetrated were 
unbounded and outrageous. They forged Gospels. Epistles, canons, 
constitutions, creeds, visions, and revelations without number, and gave 
to them the names of all the most celebrated characters. No man 
had left an honourable name behind him who had not forged revela- 
tions fathered on him. The leaders of the Church encouraged these 
frauds. They took part in them. They justified them. They taught 
that falsehood was not only lawful but praiseworthy, when used for 
the good of souls and the spread of the Gospel. You shall hear the 
testimony of Christians on this head. The following is from Mosheim 



152 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



the ecclesiastical historian, whose reputation for truth and candour 
stands high, both here and in Europe :- — 

Not lo^g a ^ ter Christ's ascension into heaven, several histories of his life and 
doctrines,/^ of -pious frauds, and fabulous wonders, were prepared by persons 
whose intentions, perhaps, were not bad, but whose writings discovered the 
greatest superstition and ignorance. 'Nor was this all : productions appeared 
which were imposed on the world by fraudulent men, as the writings of the 
holy Apostles. 

" The Platonists and Pythagoreans held it as a maxim, that it was not only 
lawful, but even praiseworthy to deceive, and even to use the expedient of a 
lie, in order to advance tbe cause of truth and piety. The Jews, who lived in 
Egypt, had learned and received this maxim from them, before the coming of 
Christ, as appears incontestably from a multitude of ancient records : and the 
Christians were infected , from both these sources, with the same pernicious 
error, as appears from the number of books attributed falsely to great and 
venerable names, from the sibyline verses, and several superstitious produc- 
tions, which were spread abroad in this and the following century." 

Other passages of this kind might be quoted from this work in abun- 
dance ; but these are enough. 

Take, however, the following, from another worlc of Mosheim : — 

" But these few particulars [respecting the infancy and early life of Jesus] 
not being found sufficient to satisfy human curiosity, some artful and unprin- 
cipled characters amongst the early Christians, had the presumption to avail 
themselves of the ignorance and inquisitiveness of a credulous multitude in 
this respect, and, under the pretence of illustrating this obscure part of our 
Saviours life, to impose on the public a compilation of ridiculous and nonsen- 
sical storie% which they entitled Gospels of the infancy of Christ." 

Other writings were forged, in the names of Clement, Polycarp, 
Ignatius, and others, Some wrote books and sent them abroad under 
the names of Noah, Seth, Abraham and Enoch. Others were forged 
in the names of celebrated Gentiles. Books previously written were 
altered to meet the wants of the priesthoods. Frauds overflowed the 
church like a deluge, till a darkness like the fabled darkness of Egypt 
wrapped the converted nations as in a pall, and chaos came again. 
Here, also, I could give almost a world of facts, illustrating my state- 
ments, and establishing my positions. But time would not permit. 
These, however, are sufficient to show the unsoundness of the arguments 
of my opponent* built on the testimony of the early Christians. His 
theory is but as the vapour which the wind carrieth away. 

I know the seeming arguments with which such theories are some- 
times propped ; but they are errors or frauds, from first to last. The 
whole external argument rests on testimony, and the testimony on 
which it rests is good for nothing. It is false from first to last — a 
world of. falsehood. The Ancients and the Moderns are alike in this 
respect. None are worthy of trust. Begin with Horne or Watson, or 
the random writer from whom my opponent read so rapidly his pre- 
tended list of prophecies ; or begin with Newton, Keith, or Nelson : 
and not a solitary statement of any of them can be found which can be 
safely trusted. I could give you hundreds of proofs that the modern 
defenders of Bible inspiration act as freely on the principle that it is 
right to use falsehood for the good of souls and the defence of the 
church and the Bible, as the ancient ones, though they do not find it 
convenient to avow the principle, as their elder brethren did. Take 
an example. Here is Nelson, an American defender of the Bible. 
His work is published by the American Tract Society, so that the 
Orthodox churches and priesthoods are answerable for its contents-. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



153 



Yet its contents are a mass of falsehood, much of it wiiful falsehood. 
Take the following as an example. 

In his " Cause and Cure of Infidelity," Nelson quotes, or pretends 
to quote, from Voltaire, as follows : — 

'* Men saw Isaiah walking, sta?^ naked, in Jerusalem, in order to show that 
the King of Assyria would bring crowds of captives out of Egypt and Ethiopia 
who would not have anything to cover their nakedness. Is it possible that a 
man could walk, stark naked, through Jerusalem, without being punished by 
the civil power." 

Nelson then says : — 

" What impression must this make on one who opened the book in search of 
support of his system of Infidelity ? I had read the Bible and heard it read 
often, (through neceesity,) when I was young. I knew that many who read 
this would think it true, and make their inferences without further examination; 
but/knew itto be false, and lknew that the author must have known its untruth 
He that the man without arms [weapons of war] was. and is called naked, 
in a military sense. Armed troops, and naked troops, are terms in common use. 
2s o one means by this stark nakedness, except those who choose so to under- 
stand ; and those who thus choose; have something in their hearts which so 
actuates them." 

Look at the passage referred to in Isaiah — it is in chapter 22nd — ■ 
and see whether Isaiah speaks of literal nakedness, or of figurative n a- 
kedness : — 

" At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah, the son of Amoz, saying, Go, 
and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. 
And he did so, walking Staked and barefoot. And the Lord said, ' Like as my 
servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years, for a sign and a 
wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead away 
the Egyptian prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and 
barefooot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.' " 

It is not only plain that Isaiah spoke of literal nakedness, but that 
Nelson must have known that he did. In making his charge of wil- 
ful falsehood against Voltaire, he himself was guilty of wilful false- 
hood. Voltaire had spoken the exact truth ; and Nelson knew it. A 
grosser or more palpable case of wilful lying than that of Nelson's, 
backed by the churches and clergy of America, cannot be produced. 

This practice of using wilful falsehoods is common to advocates of 
the divine authority of the Bible generally. 

Take Keith on the Prophecies ; he not only falsifies history, but 
alters prophecy, and actually makes prophecy where there was none. 

Take Simpson, Bishop Watson, and Mcllvaine j they all belie the 
writings of Paine, on points respecting which they could not be de- 
ceived, if they ever read his writings. And to slander a man's writings 
on mere hearsay, without reading them, is almost as bad as to slander 
them wilfully after reading them. 

Then think of the worlds of pious fraud embedded in the histories, 
traditions and legends of the Church of Rome. You can believe in 
the infinite, unscrupulous, and systematic deceit of the Catholics. The 
Catholics can believe in the deceitfulness of the Protestants. We can 
believe in both. A most ignoble pair. Yet the testimony of those 
two profligate, perjured witnesses, who call each other liars to the face, 
and damn each other to the eternal fires of pitch and brimstone, in the 
bottomless abyss, is all the advocate of Bible inspiration has on which 
to rest his case. 

We have, next, an appeal to prophecy. But observe, my opponent 



154 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



should have done three things to make an argument out of prophecy, all 
of which he omitted to do. He should 

1. Have proved that the passages to which he referred were pro- 
phecies, and prophecies of Jesus. 

2. He should have proved that the Gospel histories are real, true 
histories ; statements of facts. 

3. He should then have shown that the prophecies were really ful- 
filled in those facts. 

He should have taken each pretended prophecy separately ; told us 
where it was ; shown us that it really meant what he supposed ; then 
carried it over to the fact supposed to be its fulfilment — shown us that 
the supposed fact really happened as represented in the Gospel ; shown 
that the fact and the prophecy correspond, and so in every case. But 
this my opponent did not do. Perhaps he will try to do it. We 
will wait and see. Till he has done it, he will have proved nothing 
more than that he is very wishful to seem to prove something, whether 
he can, in reality, prove it or not. 

There are a few other points my opponent will do well to consider : 

1 How prophecies sometimes fulfil themselves. 

2. How Christian historians make history out of prophecy. See 
Mosheim. 

3. How easy it is for people, with prophecy in view, to modify the 
story of a man's life, so as to fit the one to the other, especially when 
the man has long been dead. 

4. He should also think a little of those passages which" represent 
God as employing/a/se prophets to deceive into belief of a false religion. 

He says that Jesus sanctioned the Old Testament Scriptures. 

We ask for proof. 

We know of none. 

We see proof to the contrary. 

In the New Testament, I find errors gross and numerous. (Laughter 
and hisses.) We have had proof sufficient of this. We need no fur- 
ther proof than that certain parties in the audience can laugh and jeer 
during a serious debate. I find in the New Testament errors in genea- 
logy ; the descent of Jesus is traced in two genealogies through Joseph 
to David — each of the two contains different persons, and a different 
number of genarations, and both differ from the parallel genealogies 
in the Old Testament. After so much painful labour to prove him of 
the seed of David through Joseph, we are told that he was not Joseph's 
son at all. 

We find errors in references to prophecies. Matthew tells us that 
the child was called Jesus, " that it might he fulfilled which was 
spoken of by the Lord to the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall 
be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name 
Emanuel." A curious reason for calling him Jesus, that the prophet 
had said he should be called Emanuel. 

Again : Matthew tells us that Joseph took the young child and his 
mother, by night, and departed into Egypt, and was there until the 
death of Herod, " That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the 
Lord by the prophet, saying, Oat of Egypt have I called my son." 
We waive, for the present, the objection that Luke gives an account 
of Christ's infancy, which makes this visit to Egypt impossible. The 
words quoted as a prophecy of Jesus are to be found in Hosea, but 



REMARKS OF Dlt. BERG. 



155 



on looking at the passage, as found in Hosea, it is found to be no pre- 
diction at all. The words are, " When Israel was a child, then I 
loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." It is Israel that is 
spoken of. The calling out of Egypt spoken of past, not future. 
And so with other pretended predictions. Not one of those men- 
tioned by the Doctor makes mention of Christ, or refers to him in 
any way. 

There are similar contradictions in the history of the New Testa- 
ment, and as to its morality, we have shown that it inculcates the 
basest servility to tyrannical government — places the wife under the 
despotic control of the husband — and that it enjoins upon servants to 
be obedient in all things to their masters, not only to the- good and 
gentle, but even to the fro ward. Worse morality could not be taught. 
(Time expired. Hisses and applause.) 

EEMAEKS OF REV. DR. BERG. 

I would thank my opponent, when he quotes me again, to quote 
me correctly. I said Matthew was a disciple, though it is true he was 
also an apostle. 

I was just beginning, when my time was up, to show that it was 
impossibe that the Evangelists could have patched up the Gospel from 
floating traditions. My opponent has proved that, in the early age of 
the Church, there were many spurious works in the world, purporting 
to be the exponents of religious systems. He instances the book of 
the Shepherd of Hermes. But what has the book of the Shepherd of 
Hermes to do with the book of Matthew 1 My opponent's business 
is not to prove Hermes not true, but to prove Matthew not true. 
How does he accomplish this end 1 These books of Hermes and 
others are not true, and, therefore, the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
and John are not true. Indeed ! Why, I might thus infer the fal- 
sity of the Bible from the fictions of Don Quixote. What earthly 
need was there of these traditions 1 If the Evangelists did patch up 
the Gospel from floating traditions, is it not a marvel that all four of 
them should, at different times, in different places, and with no collu- 
sion or comparison with each other, state the same truths with so much 
substantial agreement ? How will my opponent account for this ? 
Will he impugn their motives ? Why, interest forbade such a course 
of conduct. What did they gain but persecution and temporal penal- 
ties ? Impostors do not covet such things. The Evangelists suffered 
rebukes and tossings. Impostors never covet them ; they covet wealth 
and power ; but the Evangelists lost all to follow Christ. They were 
honest men. Their lives prove it. They were driven from their 
civil and social positions and possessions. 

Is not, then, their record true 1 It comprises all the details, either 
of their own experience, or that of others, who, like themselves, had 
sacrificed everything. The whole history of Paul, in connection with 
that of Christ, gives an overflowing argument for the truth of the 
Scriptures. Who was Paul ? After the straitest sect of his religion, 
a Pharisee ; a Hebrew of the Hebrews, caressed, honoured, young, 
aspiring, impetuous, of cultivated intellect, and skilled in all the learn- 
ing of the times. Behold this man turning from the open path of 
preferment, notwithstanding the entreaties of his friends j abandoning 



156 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



the feet of Gamaliel fur the feet of Christ ; seeking the society and 
confidence of the very men he had hated and persecuted ; and count- 
ing all this sacrifice as less than nothing, that he might win Christ, 
and be found in him. Behold him devoting his energies with quench- 
less fervour to the task of promoting the Gospel ; proclaiming, in the 
very face of kings, priests, and Infidels alike, that Jesus was the 
resurrection and the life— the only hope of men in life and death. 
What a stupendous change ! What wrought this change ? The 
story is recited by Luke. And now, mark ! if he be an impostor, 
(and he w r as, if this statement be not true,) how can my opponent 
evade the point 1 Let him explain how, everywhere, Paul recom- 
mends devotion and practical benevolence ; how he sacrificed tem- 
poral good, and considered it of no account, in comparison with the 
love of Christ ; how always futile were the blandishments and curses 
of the world alike to win him from the way he had chosen. Would 
he, if an impostor, (and he must have known that he was supporting 
a lie, if it had been so,) have disappointed the hopes of his kindred, 
his own hopes of preferment and distinction, have sacrificed his wealth 
and reputation, to encounter perils by sea and perils by land, and 
perils among false brethren, and to run the gauntlet through scourg- 
ings, and contempt, and bonds, and go daily in danger of his life, to 
sanction a story which he knew to be a lie ? Impossible ! He be- 
lieved in fearful retributions against the enemies of truth ; would he 
encounter them by systematic lying '? He preached a high standard of 
morality and virtue ; he preached the doctrine of justification by an 
imputed righteousness. And let my opponent here mark ! neither he, 
nor any other Christian ever gave his enemies a warrant, by his ex- 
ample, to charge this doctrine with being of licentious tendency. 
(Applause.) It is calumny. Here is the brightest refutation, in the 
case of Paul, and of every other man who walks by faith and not by 
sight. How can a man dare to call those who regard these truths 
with love and reverence, fanatics ? Monstrous ! Infidels never, in 
their most presumptuous paroxysm of atheistic folly, more utterly ex- 
pose the rottenness of the foundation upon which their system is built, 
than when they dare deny attributes thus stamped with all that is 
genuine and noble in humanity. 

When my opponent tells us how much of the Psalms, Proverbs, of 
Job, and the writings of Paul, is pure and good, and insists that all 
cannot make a perfect rule of faith and practice, and that we must 
study the laws of human organization, I know not which most to 
admire — the self-complacency with w/hich he would allow us to infer 
that he could make a better rule than this in the Bible, or the facility 
with which he overlooks the laws of our organization, that govern the 
mind in determining the weight and truth of evidence, or the blind- 
ness which compels him, in spite of himself, to pay homage to the 
excellencies of men whom he calls arrant fanatics. Surely, he will 
pardon me if I express doubt of his qualifications to point to us a 
more excellent way than the pure Word of God. We want some- 
thing fixed and substantial. None of us would be satisfied to take 
his vagaries for our guide ; for, alas ! he is like an unfortunate vessel 
which has lost her anchorage, and, without chart or compass, is drift- 
upon the dark sea of speculation, blown about with every wind of 
doctrine. (Applause,) Let him go on without this blessed chart, in 



RI'MAKKS OF DR. BKHO. 



157 



the study of his organization, while his vessel is settling in the dark 
waters, and, shortly, he will have to take a leap in the dark, and, we 
fear, like the unfortunate Hobbs, into the dark. He says he has no 
fear. He would gentlv correct his child, and God is not more severe 
with his children. Very well. Yet it scarcely comports with his 
assertion of the other evening, that God never forgives sin. Still, I 
forgive this lapse of memory. He has said so many absurd things, 
that it would hardly be generous to insist upon convincing him on 
them all. 

He ridicules the idea of our question — How do you know there is 
no devil 1 Is his ipse dixit enough to make us ignore his existence 1 

My opponent put words into my mouth that f never- tfsed. He 
makes me charge God with all the sin of the world, because I asserted 
that he permitted David's sin. I made no such assertion. God is 
not the author of sin, and to make such a charge is blasphemy. My 
opponent's principles are abhorrent, for this very reason. God is not 
the author of sin, though lie permitted Satan's fall. God does not 
make passive machines. Both men and angels are responsible for 
their actions, and will for ever be responsible. 

My opponent referred to the dark ages. What made them dark, 
but the quenching of the holy light of the Scriptures ? Let Infidels 
cover the candle of revelation with their bushel, and see how long a 
time will elapse before a dark pall of horror covers the land, and 
thick darkness falls upon us. 

My opponent accuses me of passing hurriedly over a list of prophe- 
cies, without proof. He knows that but a few minutes remained to 
me, and I only pretended to give a list, intending to recur to them 
again. Let us now look at the first of them : — "But thou, Bethlehem- 
Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet 
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the Ruler in 
Israel ; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." 
Miach 5:2. Go now to the fulfilment of this prophecy : — "Now, 
when Jesus was born, in Bethlehem of Judea." Matthew 2 : 1. 

Will my opponent say that this has no reference to Christ ? To 
whom, then, has it reference ? It is not predicted that Jerusalem, 
the capital, and the place most likely to be selected by a human oracle 
for the birth of Christ, shall be the honoured spot. But Bethlehem, 
a little obscure country village is specified. Christ was born at 
Bethlehem, and that, too, by a series of very peculiar providences. 

We go now to the second we shall instance : — '•' Rejoice greatly, O 
daughter of Zion ; shout, daughter of Jerusalem ; behold thy King 
cometh unto thee ; He is just, and having salvation ; lowly, and 
riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass." Zechariah 2 : 9. 

In the twenty-first chapter of Matthew, from the first to the twelfth 
verse, we find the literal fulfilment. 

It was prophesied that he should be betrayed by an intimate friend. 
And was he not ? Read that beautiful Messianic ode, the 19th 
Psalm, and then compare with Matthew 26 : 47. 

The prophecy of Zechariah concerning his price — the thirty pieces 
of silver — you have become familiar with in the course of this discus- 
sion. Compare Isaiah 59 : 9 — " Therefore is judgment far from us," 
&c, with the whole history of his cruc fixion. Were not his condem- 
nation, suffering and death, all under colour of justice ? 



159 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



Isaiah, in his fifty- third chapter, speaks almost as if he were an 
eye-witness, writing the history of Christ, instead of a prophet fore- 
telling his sufferings. Was he not scourged 1 Was he not smitten 
on the face 1 Was he not befouled with spittle ? Was he not 
wounded in his hands by his countrymen ? Who can fail to see the 
literal fulfilment of these predictions 1 Who can have the hardihood 
to say that no manner of evidence can be adduced from prophecy — 
that no single fact of real prophecy was fulfilled 1 An assertion more 
monstrous, it would be impossible for even my opponent to make. 

" He was numbered with transgressors " He was crucified be- 
tween two thieves, " He made his grave with the wicked, and with 
the rich iti his death." He was buried in the sepulchre of the wealthy 
Joseph of Ararnathea. How can these be mere coincidents ? Will 
my opponent venture to tell us any thing, not of the most ordinary 
occurrence, that shall happen to-morrow ? Will he risk his reputa- 
tion by any such ordeal ? I know of none more tremendous to which 
the Bible could have been subjected. When we find Christ's coming 
and whole history recorded just at that point of time when Daniel's 
seventy weeks had expired, and many other prophecies fulfilled at 
that juncture, we must argue that men are inexcusably blind to reject 
this testimony ; testimony to the truth which the God of heaven has 
stamped upon this holy Book, showing things that are to come, and 
that Christ is the Messiah. (Tremendous cheering. Time up.) 

EIGHTH EVENING. 

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 

All T ask is a patient, and, if possible a candid hearing. I am not 
conscious of having done or said any thing in this debate to provoke 
ill-feeling, or to forfeit my claim to a hearing. Nor have I any dis- 
position to do so. As is necessary in such a debate, I shall speak my 
thoughts and feelings with great plainness, and with all freedom, but 
nothing further. If the audience can bear with me I will be glad ; if, 
however, any should find it impossible to govern the expression of 
their feeling, I shall not be inclined harshly to censure them, for I 
remember the time when I should have been less likely to govern 
myself than at present. 

The subject of discussion is, 1. The origin of the Scriptures, as in- 
dicated by internal and external evidence ; and, 2. Their tendency, 
when accepted as of Divine authority. The debate has turned almost 
wholly on the first topic, while the tendency of the Scriptures, when 
accepted as a revelation from God, has been touched upon only inci- 
dentally. I propose to speak of it at some length, after noticing 
some of the Doctor's remarks on the last evening. 

The Doctor says that it is impossible that the Gospels could have 
been written from traditions. Now, if he will prove it impossible, 
he will have done something for his cause. Till then, he will allow 
us to believe that nothing could be easier or more natural. 

Does it follow that the Gospels are untrue, because the Shepherd 
of Hermes was a forgery 1 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



159 



No ; but the fact, that the early Christians forged so many books 
and that the Fathers of the Church encouraged such frauds, destroys 
the worth of their testimony. And we have nothing but the testi- 
mony of those forgers and false witnesses in favour of the genuineness 
and truthfulness of the Gospel. And when the foundations are de- 
stroyed, the building falls. 

But would the writers have stated the same matters with so little 
variation and so much agreement, if they had written from traditions? 
We answer, the Gospels are just such writings as we should expect 
from such a source. 

What did the disciples gain by following Christ 1 We know what 
Jesus promised them, and what they expected, according to the 
Gospels ; namely, thrones, empire, wealth and glory. 

The Evangelists were honest men : and if so, their record must be 
true ; for they spoke of their own experience. But the Doctor has 
yet to prove that the writers give us their own experience. He has 
yet to prove that the Gospels were written by the persons whose 
names they bear. 

But think of Paul, says the Doctor, converted, and embracing 
Christianity, under such peculiar circumstances. 

But the Doctor must first prove, that Paul was thus suddenly con- 
verted, (hisses ;) and second, that he was a man of so much judgment 
and sound sense as he supposes ; and lastly, that men of judgment 
and sound sense have never been converted to false religions, by im- 
aginary visions or voices — none of which can be proved ; the opposite 
can be proved. The history of Southcoteanism, Millerism, Sweden- 
borgianism, Mormonism, and Irvingism, have taught us lessons on 
these subjects. 

Could Paul have written and lived as he did, if he had been an 
impostor ? 

It is hard to say how impostors may write and live. (Cry in audi- 
ence, 11 It is, it is." Laughter and hisses.) But we are not supposing 
Paul to have been an impostor. He might be deceived. But how 
are we to know how Paul wrote and lived ? My opponent takes for 
granted what he ought to prove. 

Would Paul have encountered the hell threatened to liars, by 
telling falsehoods 1 

My opponent should understand that Christians distinguish be- 
tween lying, and using falsehood for the good of souls. They contend, 
that to deceive people for their good, and the cause of God, is not 
lying. (Hisses.) 

Paul taught the doctrine of justification by the imputed righteous- 
ness of Christ. — He did no such thing. 

The Doctor says I have the self-complacency to think that I could 
give a better rule of life than the Bible. 

The Bible gives opposite rules of life. No one could well give a 
worse rule than one ; and it would be no great matter to boast of, to 
be able to give a better than its best. (Hisses.) 

But I do not understand the law of evidence ! 

He is mistaken. I understand his laws of evidence very well ; 
but they are bad ones. 

Bat they want something fixed as a rule of life. 

Then they must go somewhere else for it. The Bible furnishes no 
fixed rule. 



1(50 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



I am to take a leap in the dark, the Doctor says, and into the dark. 

Well, I hope the Doctor will allow me to take my own time for it. 
But we think we are not quite so much in the dark as the Doctor. 

Our God never forgives sin he says. True, but he does what is 
better. Ke punishes so as to cure us of sinning. (Hisses.) He says 
God is not the author of sin. But he must be if he does whathejper- 
mits to be done 

The darkness of the middle ages was caused by quenching the light 
of the Scriptures, says the Doctor. Were the Scriptures, then unable 
to keep themselves from being extinguished % Strange light of the 
world. But who quenched their light ? Those who had them. 
Then what comes of your argument that those who have the Scrip- 
tures are better people than others 1 And pray, what enlightened the 
world, when the light of the Scriptures had been put out ; The truth 
is, we are indebted for the preservation of the Scriptures, to the light 
and virtue which exists in human nature, independent of the Scrip- 
tures. If it were not for the Infidels, as they are falsely called, the 
light of the Scriptures would be extinguished again. (Great hisses.) 
The Priests and Churches invariably put out its light when they can. 
It is the darkness of the Scriptures they want ; it is we who prize its 
light. 

We had next a repetition of his pretended prophecies ; but did not 
the Doctor see and feel that he was taking for granted the points to 
be proved 1 He should have proved. 

1. That the passages he quoted were prophecies of Christ. But 
this he never attempted. He would have failed if he had. Not one 
of them so much as mentions Christ. Many of them are no prophe- 
cies at all ; and none of them can be proved to refer to Christ. 

2. He ought to have proved, next, that what he calls the Gospel 
facts are facts. That he did not do. It can't be done. 

3. He should have proved, next, that the alleged prophecies av.d 
alleged facts agreed ; but even this he did not do. 

But it is easy for a man who writes a life from fancy and tradition, 
to adapt the story to alleged prophecies. It is natural also, for sup- 
posed prophecies to generate fables, and cause them, in time, to be 
mistaken for facts. Christians have followed the business of making 
history out of prophecies, and prophecies out of nothing, for eighteen 
hundred years. The business is not so good now, but it is still carried on. 

The Doctor says I rely on Professor Hitchcock's testimony about 
the Deluge. No. We merely quote the Professor as corroboratory, 
because he is a Christian. All modern geologists, so far as I am ac- 
quainted with their works, give the same testimony. 

He says I fled to commentators to support my view of the passage 
in Job 19. I did two things. I said the passage in Hebrew does 
not say what the translators make it say ; and that in saying this, I am 
borne out by many commentators. 

I now come to the influence of the Bible, when accepted as the r-e- 
vealed word of the Creator. And here I will not go fur evidence to 
Infidel writings, or appeal to Infidel prejudice, but will take the testi- 
mony of Christians themselves. My first quotation is from John 
Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church. He says :- — 

" The Reformed Christians in Germany and France, in Sweden, Denmark 
Holland, in Great Britain and Ireland, are far beneath the heathens, even far 
beneath the inhabitants of China and Hindostan, in jnstice, mercy and truth. 



REMARKS OP JOSEPH BARKER. 



161 



' For we who by thy name are named, 
The heathen unbaptized outsin.' " [Vol. 9. p. 216. 

Again he says : 

" Historians, indeed, tell us, very gravely, of nations, in every century, who 
were converted to Christianity. But still, these converts practised all kinds of 
abominations, exactly as they did before : no way differing, either in their 
tempera or in their lives, from the nations that were still called heathens." — 
Vol. 9, p. 215. 

And again : — ■ 

" We learn from Tertullian, that in the second century, ' not only the tem- 
pers of the Christians were exactly the same with those of their heathen neigh- 
bours, but their lives and manners also ; pride, passion, love of the world, re- 
maining alike in both." — Vol. 9, 213. 

There are stranger passages still, invol. 12, p. 223. Take the following: 

" Now, what can an impartial person think concerning the present state of 
religion in England ? Is there a nation under the sun, which is so deeply fallen 
from the very first principles of religion 1 Where is the country in which is 
found so utter a disregard to Heathen Morality 1 ? Such a thorough contempt 
of justice and truth, and all that should be dear and honourable to rational 
creatures'? What species of vice can possibly be named, even of those that 
nature itself abhors, of which we have not had, for many years, a plentiful and 
still increasing harvest 1 Whas sin remains, either in Eome or Constantinople, 
which we have not imported long ago, (if it was not of our own native growth) 
and improved upon ever since ? Such a complication of villanies of every kind, 
.considered with all their aggravations ; such a scorn of whatever bears the face 
of virtue ; such injustice, fraud, and falsehood ; above all, such perjury, such a 
method of law, we may defy the whole world to produce. What numbers of 
those who profess religion confute their profession by their practice : yea, and 
perhaps by their exorbitant pride, vanity, coveteousness, rapaciousness, and 
oppression, cause the very name of religion to stink in the nostrils of many 
otherwise, reasonable men ? 

As this is a delicate subject, rather than say anything myself, I will 
state the conclusions to which one of your own citizens, an Orthodox 
Christian, has arrived, on the same subject. In his " New Themes for the 
Protestant Clergy," Mr. S. Col well expresses the following opinions : — 

The Church forbade all freedom of thought or speech, extinguished 
all thirst for knowledge, and all independence of soul and made men its 
slaves. — pp. 89, 90 of "New Themes tor the Protestant Clergy"'' 

The craving for power is more eager in priests than in politicians. 
Its exhibitions are more hateful and mischievous in every thing con- 
cerning religion. The thirst for power, the rage to govern, infects 
every religious denomination ; it reaches every thing in men's conduct 
and every thing in their opinions. — pp. .99, 1 00. 

The contest between Protestants and Catholics, at the reformation, 
was the most remarkable for fierceness the world ever witnessed. Roms 
exerted all her power and all the unscrupulous wickedness of inter- 
ested dignitaries. In this contest, charity had no part. — p. 109. 

The Church forged fetters for the world, which held men in bon- 
dage for a thousand years. — p. 118. 

No selfishness is so intense as that which prevails in Protestant 
countries. This is their chief characteristic. In the contest for wealth, 
every possible human effort is exercised. — p. 124. 

The Protestant ministry plunges into the stream. — p. 126. 

The clergy of the Church of England embezzled all charities — per- 
verted them. They robbed the poor of many millions a year. They pay 
not the slightest regard to the trusts reposed in them. The Protes- 
tants are worse in this respect than the Catholics. The English Bishops 

L 



162 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



waste millions a year, of wealth given to the poor, while the poor, 
to whom the wealth was left, starve in their presence. — pp. 140, 1. 

The English Church, from the first, took the treasures from the 
poor, then left the poor to the World. — pp. 141, 2. 

Many thousands were hung in the reign of Henry VIII., for being 
unemployed, or idle poor. They first robbed, then gave the poor the 
bad name of vagabond, then hung them. — p. 143. 

The Church of England, for three centuries, has shut her eyes from 
beholding, shut her ears from hearing, and withheld her hands from 
removing the woes of ten generations of increasing millions of suffer- 
ing poor. The State has reduced the treatment of the poor to a sys- 
tem, which has since been adopted for criminals. — pp. 143, 4. 

The poor are regarded as a burden on society, to be got rid of by any 
course short of murder. A clergyman, Malthus, wrote a book to discoun- 
tenance charity- — to encourage people to let the poor starve, &c.-p. 151. 

Inhumanity can go no further. 

Other Christians have not taught or practised the precepts of charity— 

p. 154. 

They exhibit all manner of uncharitableness in their bearing towards 
each other. — p. 154. 

Full of self-righteousness. 

Do nothing even to raise the poor to a state in which they can live 
by their labour. — p. 160. 

Mr. Colwell can find no traces of any great movement among Eng- 
lish Christians to redeem the poor from their helpless bondage — p. 160. 

They do not even preach the Gospel to the poor. — p. 161. 

The labour of Great Britain absorbed by a comparatively few. The 
producers of wealth left to starve. — p. 167. 

Scores of churches surround us, mutually repelling and attacking 
each other, and presenting a scene of strife, jealousy, animosity, and 
evil- speaking, with scarce a parallel for virulence. — p. 176. 

The bitterness of division only increases as the differences between 
them become less. — p. 177. 

Each sect rent by internal feuds. — p. 177. 

Many of them convulsed to their centres, or blown asunder by ex- 
plosions of strife and evil passions, which would be a disgrace to a 

civilized people. — p. 177. 

Where Protestantism prevails, a hard and unrelenting selfishness, a 
devotion to Mammon never before equalled, a grinding competition in 
the pursuits of life, a race of wealth and power in which the multitudes 
are distanced by a few, who become masters, and wield their powei with 
unpitying severity, a scene of strife, of endless divisions, of hot discus- 
sions about trifles, of sectarian rivalry, in which every element of evil 
mingles, often without even a spice of human kindness. — p. 183. 

The Clergy. — The frailties of human nature have been as appa- 
rent among them as others. They have shown themselves as suscep- 
tible to temptation. — p. 203. 

The charge of a pastor has grown to be an affair of business, not a 
mission of truth and mercy to the poor. Their discourses are not ad- 
dressed to the poor, but to the owners of the churches. — p. 215. 

In what Protestant country are the clergy regarded by the mass of 
the poor as their special friends ? In what country do the poor re- 
ceive from ministers, as such, any evidences of special regard, tern- 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER j 



163 



poral or spiritual, beyond what may be dictated by, and subserve the 
interests of, such ministers and bishops themselves ? — p. 224. 

In Protestant countiies, the wrangling disputes and uncharitable 
bearing of the various churches, carry disgust and dislike wherever 
they are witnessed. — p. 260. 

Mr. Colwell holds the following opinions of 

INFIDELS AND MEN OF THE WORLD. 
" Unbelievers do not dislike or dispise Cristians for the good that is in them,, 
but the eviL It is worthy of special remark, that the exercise of charity, of 
brotherly love, of humanity, embracing those duties which Christians most over- 
look and neglect, are the very duties in which Men of the World are most wil- 
ling to engage and carry on independently or in company with Christians. It 
is further to be noted, that the very many of the benevolent and Christian 
enterprises of the day are, in fact, more indebted to the liberality of men not 
professing to be Christians, than to those who are. In those very departments 
in which Christians are most deficient, Men of the "World are most efficient, — < 
most inclined to act. The strict moralists of the world feel that their own 
conduct, even in what they deem Christian virtue, is so much superior to that of 
professed Christians, that they cannot reverence the Christian religion." p. 265. 

" It is a fact worthy of note and careful reflection, that many of the most 
zealous friends of humanity have either been Infidels, or have shown a strong 
bias in that direction We refer not to those who are merely seeking political 
reforms; but to those who apparently desire to go deeper, and effect more ra- 
dical changes for the better in human condition. To go no further back than 
Paine, a long list of men might be found, whose zeal for humanity made them 
Infidels, or whose Infidelity begat their zeal for human welfare. They were 
looking for something to be accomplished. They find Christians arrayed 
against their plans, and they array themselves against Christianity. There is 
an appearance as if Infidelity were on the side of human well-being, while 
Christianity stands up in defence of ancient abuses, oppressive legislation, and 
social enormities. Is it so, that those who set themselves to examine existing 
institutions and the evils which afflict humanity, are brought to the conclusion 
that Christianity is one of the chief barriers to progress in the path of charity 
and social well-being]" — p. 268* 

" One-third of mankind are rich, or in easy, comfortable circumstances, and 
resist all great changes. They are Conservatives. And it so happens, in 
Christendom, that this happy third consists of the priesthood, the nobles, 
public officers, gentry, and men of wealth." — p. 270r 

"In chartism, in democracy, in socialism, there is not necessarily any ingre 
dient of Infidelity : and yet, we find them, to a large extent, travelling toge" 
ther ; because Christians, as such, and those who pretend to be such, have" 
without just discrimination, opposed every movement of reform, as dangerous* 
to society." — p. 272 — 3. 

" Religion and its institutions constitute a very effective power. This power 
is abused both positively and negatively, by what it does and what it prohibits 
being done ; it is efficient of evil and repressive of good. 

" Those holding and wielding this power have always been inclined, not only 
to stifle inquiry into abuses, (which might expose them,) but also all free ex- 
pressions of opinion, which might, in any way, bring the validity of their dog- 
mas in question. It was easier for them to sit tranquil in their places, and 
hold men to one track of thought, than to examine and try the soundness of 
positions as fast as they might be advanced. This power for repression of 
truth and all disturbing investigations, we find freely exercised. Thus, the 
Catholic opposition to the astronomical discoveries of the middle ages. Thus, 
the modern opposition to the conclusions of geology ; and thus, the almost uni- 
versal opposition among the rigid churchmen and the severely Orthodox, to 
all free inquiries into human condition, the rights and wrongs of the poor, and 
into the great problem of proper security for human labours. These subjects 
are proclaimed to be ground which free inquiry should not touch ; ground 
within the domain of religion, and, therefore, not to be touched but by holy 
hands. Yet these same persons do not so much as touch these subjects with 
their little fingers. They do not enter in themselves, and they would fain 
prevent others from entering." — pp. 27, 29. 

" The worst, the most inhuman book on the treatment of the poor ever pub- 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



lished — the most inhuman book possible — was written by a clergyman, 
Malthus. The answer, the indignant, crushing answer to that book, was from 
an Infidel, W. Godwin." 

So much for the opinions of Mr. Col well, respecting Christians an^ 
Infidels. And here let me interpose one remark, in regard to the 
alleged unwillingness of Christians to hear anything said against their 
views. I take it for granted, that in the present discussion, their ob- 
ject is to turn Infidels into Christians. If so, they should and will 
observe such a calm deportment, as will show that they are con- 
vinced that anything like free discussion will always turn out in their 
favour. (Mr. Barker had begun to state a few things his opponent should 
prove, when his time expired. As he repeated them in his closing 
speech, they will be found there. As he took his seat, there weie a 
few hisses. 

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG. 

(Applause.) My friends will oblige me by endeavouring to listen 
with as much calmness as they possibly can. I ask this as much on 
my opponent's account as my own. For the last two weeks, I have 
be^n weighed down by the pressure of intense excitement, and my 
physical system is now beginning to feel it. 

You hardly expect an extended reply to the assertion of my oppo- 
nent, that Christians make a distinction between lying and using pious 
frauds for the good of souls, and that they do not call the latter lying 
at all. A baser slander was never uttered by any man, be he called 
Jnfidel or any other name. (Applause.) 

My opponent asks, Are those who have the Scriptures any better 
than others 1 No ! unless they use it, and practice what it teaches. 
I do not believe that any society of Christians ever taught, that the 
mere possession of the Scriptures, without the practice of its precepts, 
saved the soul. Wheji you produce to me a man, who makes the 
Bible his rule of faith and duty, I will show you a man, who, in all 
the relations of life that he can possibly sustain, is an upright man 
before God and men. (Applause.) 

My opponent speaks of pretended prophecies. Has he proved that 
they are pretended ? Does he forget that the burden of proof is orr 
him ? Where is the evidence that they do not mean what we hold 
as their meaning 1 Let him prove that they are pretended. (" Good." 
Applause.) Let him show us how he will get over the distinct enun- 
ciation of his birth. Let him show how it could possibly be known 
beforehand, that he would be born in Bethlehem. Let him show, 
how, at the very period ordained by God, he was born in Bethlehem. 
Let him show all the predictions of his birth, his life, his sufferings, 
his death, are all fulfilled in the history. Let us hear him explain 
these coincidences. 

My opponent has shown the same want of faith which all Infidels 
have in human testimony. My opponent could never discover whe- 
ther there is a Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jef- 
ferson, The original cannot be found. Some say, that it is preserved 
in the office of the Secretary of State : others, that it is not. All the 
witnesses are dead, as well as the signers. But, even suppose they 
were alive, and would assert the reality of its existence, it is only 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



165 



human testimony.and my opponent will not take that. If you find a man 
who thinks that every human being is an intolerable rascal, you may be 
sure that human nature in his own person is exceedingly depraved. 

My opponent has assumed the fearful risk to his argument, which I 
have shown he cannot avoid, by pretending to doubt the reality of the 
* character of Christ ; but the reasons by which he seeks to support his 
position are not worthy the name of argument. They consist of blank 
assertions in the face of overwhelming evidence, which proves that the 
Evangelists were describing a real character. This evidence I have 
already presented. I need not recapitulate it here. 

But he tells you, that even if it was real, it is far from being per- 
fect. That it fails to answer the model of Infidel perfection is readily 
conceded ; and perhaps, as my opponent has so often alluded to Tom 
Paine as a much-abused and slandered man, it may not be amiss to 
show what an Infidel, and an intimate friend of Paine, has left on 
record concerning that paragon of Infidel excellence. I allude to the 
letter of William Carver, who, be it remembered, was a co-labourer of 
the author of the " Age of Keason," and whose testimony cannot be 
challenged on the ground that he was a Christian, because he was as 
pious and devoted a blasphemer as Tom Paine himself. (Laughter.) 
He addresses the following letter in reply to one from his friend : — 

"Mr. Thomas Paine. 

" I received your letter, dated the 25th ult., in answer to mine, dated $Tov- 
21st., and, after minutely examining its contents, I found that you had taken 
the pitiful subterfuge of lying for your defence. You say that you paid me 
four dollars per week for your board and lodging, during the time that you 
were with me, prior to the 1st of June last ; which was the day that I went up 
by yoar order to bring you from York to New Rochelle. It is fortunate for 
me that I have a living evidence that saw you give me four guineas, and no 
more, in my shop, at your departure at that time ; but you said you would 
have given me more, but that you had no more with you at present. You say 
also, that yon found your own liquors during the time you boarded with me ; 
but you should have said, ' I found only a small part of the liquor I drank 
during my stay with you ; this part I purchased of John Fellows, which was a 
demijohn of brandy containing four gallons, and this did not serve me three 
weeks.' This can be proved, and I mean not to say anything that cannot be 
proved ; for I hold truth as a precious jewel. It is a well known fact that you 
drank one quart of brandy per day, at my expense, during the different times 
you have boarded with me, the demijohn above mentioned, excepted, and the 
last fourteen weeks you were sick. Is not this a supply of liquor for dinner 
and supper ] As for what you paid Mr. Glen, or any other person, that is 
nothing to me. I am not paid, and I found you room and firing besides. You 
say, as you paid by the week, it matters not how long your stay was. I acceed 
to your remark, that the time of your stay at my house would have been of no 
matter if I had been paid by the week, but the fact is otherwise. I have not 
been paid at all, or at least, but a very small part ; prove that I have if you 
can, and then I shall be viewed by my fellow- citizens in that contemptible light 
that they will view you in, after the publication of this, my letter to you. You 
ask me the question, e How is it that those that receive do not remember as well 
as those that pay 1 ?' My answer is, 'I do remember, and shall give you credit 
for every farthing I have received and no more. I will ask you what conso- 
lation you derive to your mind in departing from truth, and endeavouring to 
evade paying a just and lawful debt ] I shall pass over a great part of your 
letter with silent contempt, and oppose your false remarks with the plain truth. 
As the public will see your letter as well as mine, they will be able to judge 
your conduct and mine for themselves. You say that I seem not to know any- 
thing about the price of boarding in the city ; but I know that the price is 
from three to five dollars, and from that to ten dollars ; with an additional 
charge if the boarder should be sick for three months and upwards. I shall 
show how 1 calculate my expenditures by the bill that will be rendered to you, 



166 



DISCUSSION - ON THE BIBLE. 



and I believe it will be an important lesson to those who may undertake to 
board you hereafter. I have no person to help me to calculate or write, but 
fortunately took the advice of a friend, and got him to keep an account of all 
the times you stayed with me. You assert that your being at my house only 
added one more to the family ; I shall prove that it added to the number of 
three. You know very well when yon came, I told you I must hire a servant 
girl if you stayed with me. This I did for five months, at five dollars per 
month and her board. This I would not have done, unless you had given me 
ground to believe you would have paid me. After your departure she was dis* 
charged* Now, sir, how will you go to prove that yourself, and Mrs. Palmer, 
and the servant girl are one 1 In order to do this, you must write a new sys- 
tem of mathematics. You complain that I left your room the night that you 
pretend to have been seized with the apoplexy ; but I had often seen you in 
those fits before, and particularly after drinking a large portion of ardent 
spirits, those fits having frequently subjected you to falling. You remember 
you had one of them at Lovett's hotel, and fell from the top of the stairs to the 
bottom You likewise know I have frequently had to lift you from the floor to the 
bed You must also remember that you and myself went to spend the evening at a 
certain gentleman's house, whose peculiar situation in life forbids me to make 
mention of his name ; but I had to go and apologise for your conduct ; you 
had two of these falling fits in Broadway, before I could get you home. 

" You told me that I came up stairs in the night, and opened) the cupboard 
and took your watch. This is one more of your lies ; for I took it during the 
time your room was full of different descriptions of persons called from a porter 
house, and the street, at the eleventh hour of the night, to carry you up stairs, 
after you had fallen over the bannisters ; and, as the cupboard door was open, 
the watch lay exposed. I told you next morning I put your watch in my desk 
and you said I had done right. Why did you not complain before ? I be^ 
lieve that I should do the same again, or any other person in my situation, for 
had the watch been lost, yon would have thought that I, or some one of my 
family had got it. I believe it will not be in your power to make one of my 
fellow-citizens believe, that at this period of my life, I should turn rogue for 
an old silver watch. 

"You go on to say, 'Did you take any thing else? Have you assumed the 
character of a father confessor, as well as a son of Bacchus ] Did you lose 
any thing 1 Why do you not speak out 1 You have been so long accustomed 
to lying, one more will not choke you. Now, sir, I have to inform you, I lost a 
silver spoon that was taken to your room, and never returned. Did you take 
that away with you ] If not, I can prove that you took something else of my 
property without my consent. You likewise gave a French boy that you im- 
ported into this country, or was imported on your account, a nice pocket bottle, 
that was neither yours nor mine ; it being the property of a friend, and has 
since been called for. I lent the bottle to you, at the time you was sick with 
what you call apoplexy, but what myself and others know to be falling drunken 
fits. I have often wondered that a Freneh woman and three children should 
leave France, and all their connections, to follow Thomas Paine to America, 
Suppose I were to go to my native country, England, and take another man's 
wife, and three children of his, and leave my wife and children in this country. 
What would be the natural conclusion in the minds of the people, but that there 
was some criminal connection between the woman and myself? You have often 
told me that the French woman alluded to has never received one letter from 
her husband during the four years she has been in this country. How does this 
come to pass 1 ? Perhaps you can explain the matter." 

This precious morsel we obtain as the result of a quarrel between 
Paine and his friend, and it is an apt illustration of the old saying, to 
the effect, that when a certain class of people fall out, honest men are 
benefited. Perhaps it might be for edification and profit, to have this 
letter read annually, on the anniversary of the birth day of St. Thomas 
Paine. It might possibly stimulate his admirers to greater zeal in 
striving to obtain the highest model of Infidel perfection. 

My opponent has ashortand easy method of disposing of any amount 
of evidence. All he has to do is, to tell us, " It amounts to nothing," 
and then put at the end, Q. E. D. — quod erab demonstrandum /•- and 



EE MARKS OF DR. BERG. 



16? 



the case is as clear as darkness can make it. (Laughter.) What ! is the 
moral phenomenon presented in the character of Christ so easily ex- 
plained 1 Infidels have not always felt in this matter with my oppo- 
nent, and I cannot conceive how any man, who is disposed to take 
evidence on any question in a spirit of candour, can dismiss such an 
argument in so summary a manner. If my opponent will turn to Dr. 
McCulloch's book entitled "Proofs of the Credibility of Scripture 
Writers," vol. 1, p, 240, he will find the following confession from 
Lord Bollingbroke, one of the wittiest and shrewdest writers that ever 
assailed Christianity. He says. 

" The G-ospel teaches universal benevolence, recommends the precepts of it, 
and commands the observation of them in particular instances occasionally ; 
always supposes them, always enforces them, and makes the law of right region 
a law in every possible definition of the word beyond all cavil. I say, beyand 
all cavil, because a great deal of silly cavil has been employed to perplex the 
plainest thing in Nature, and the best determined signification of words, ac- 
cording to the different occasions on which they are used" Bollingbroke, 
Essay iv. & 5. 

"The Gospel of Christ is one continued lesson of the strictest morality, of 
justice, of benevolence, and of universal charity." Bollingbroke, Fragment 
of Essays, xx. 

Thus, out of the mouth of even an Infidel, the Gospel is shown 
to be a perfect rule of life. My opponent must remember, that the 
standard of perfection which he proposes, and which, if I understand 
it, amounts to obedience to the laws of our organization, is an abstrac- 
tion which common people cannot comprehend ; and, moreover, after 
he has arrived at the knowledge of these laws, they will require ex- 
pounders, who must come with authority, otherwise these laws will 
become a jargon of confusion, as every man will claim an equal right 
to offer his exposition of the true theory. My opponent told us, that 
the precepts of the Bible lead to intemperance in the use of strong 
drink. True, he says, the Scriptures forbid drunkenness, but then 
they fail to tell us what drunkenness is ! What next ? He cited 
the marriage supper at Cana, in Galilee, at which, he tells us, Christ, 
after the guests had drank the house dry, furnished an additional sup- 
ply of one hundred and thirty gallons of wine ; and, as there were 
twenty guests at that wedding, this would amount to a little over six 
gallons apiece. He thinks this was a bountiful provision. So do I. 
Perhaps Mr. Barker will tell us where he has obtained his information 
respecting the number of guests. I cannot find any thiny about this 
number, (twenty,) in my Bible, though I have spent some time look- 
ing at the account of the transaction furnished in this book ; and, 
not only so, I am at a loss to know how the said water-pots, contain- 
ing two or three firkins, metreles apiece, could amount to one hundred 
and thirty gallons 3 The metreles, called firkin, is used by the LXX, 
as equivalent to Heb. Seah, (2^ gallons.) 

And so, forty-five gallons would be nearer the mark, or one hun- 
dred and sixteen gallons, if equal to the Hebrew Bath. As to the num- 
ber of guests, we are told that the mother of Jesus, Jesus himself, and 
his disciples, were invited to the marriage. How many disciples 
Jesus had at that time we have no means of determining ; but we do 
know, and my opponent surely cannot be ignorant of the fact, that 
marriage ceremonies among ths Jews were attended, when the parties 
were of any note, by a large train of the friends, both of the bride and 
bridegroom. And as this seems to have been an occasion of more 
than ordinary interest, there can be no doubt that the guests were 



168 



DISCUSSION ON THE- BIBLE. 



more numerous far than Mr. Barker is pleased to imagine, The bride, 
he knows, was usually attended by at least ten bridesmaids ; and 
the bridegroom, if a notable personage, was attended by a large reti- 
nue of friends. Then, why so much ? Did our Saviour expect them 
to drink it all ? No ! there is a far better reason for the abundance. 
According to the Jewish custom, as my opponent well knows, all the 
wine left after marriage ceremonies was sold and the money given to 
the poor ; and for them Christ wished to make provision. Thus, 
every slander against the character of Christ is hurled back to the con- 
fusion of his sssailer. (Applause.) Now, I should not have taken 
up my time in noticing this objection, were it not a sample of the 
reckless style of argumentation adopted by the enemies of the Bible, 
to vilify the character of Christ. What are we to think of a dispu- 
tant, who, in the face of these facts, which he cannot deny without a 
fatal exposure of ignorance, can tell us that Christ intended to furnish 
each guest with over six gallons of strong drink 1 This looks like the 
desperation of blasphemy ! The Bible allows the use of wine, but 
forbids the abuse of it. It forbids drunkenness. But what is drunk- 
enness 1 says my opponent. Perhaps, if he would attend some anni- 
versary of the birth of the tutelary Saint of Infidelity, he will not be 
any longer at a loss for an answer to his question. (Great applause.) 

He says he does not traduce the character of Christ ; that I have 
not proved he claimed to be a perfect character. Mr. Barker must 
pardon me for having taken for granted that he had some little ac- 
quaintance with the New Testament. I must advise him to read the 
Gospels before undertaking to vilify Christianity. My opponent at- 
tempts to lepresentme as opposing " Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," 
in every sense, because I object to it in the scope given by the wolves 
in sheep's clothing, who know in their hearts, that, had they the power, 
they would usher in another Infidel millenium, that reign of terror to 
the few ! The few, by Mr. Barker's showing, are the aristocract and 
the priests, as all ministers of the Christian religion, without exception, 
are denominated and denounced by my opponent, and by his brethren 
of the Sunday Institute, who chant odes to their nameless God, in 
anticipation of the downfall of every Christian ordinance and institu- 
tion ! The spirit of Infidelity is a revengeful spirit, (applause,) with 
all its professions of philanthropy ; and, therefore, Christ says, " Be- 
ware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but 
inwardly they are ravening wolves." To hear them talk of liberty 
and love, sounds like the bleating of pet lambs ; but we know them, 
and we do not trust them. (Applause.) 

I presented some of the prophecies which refer to Christ in evi- 
dence, but as he objects to them, notwithstanding the overwhelming 
array of proof, positive, plain and undeniable, I will present another 
fact, namely, that Jesus Christ was not only the subject of prophecy, 
but was himself the most illustrious of prophets, and give ample proof, 
by his prophecies, as well as by his miracles, of his divine commis- 
sion. Bishop Newton gives a summary of these prophecies, (vol. 1, 
p. 391,) and it is a fair test of the Saviour's claims. Christ says, 
" I tell you before it come, that when it is come to pass, you may be- 
lieve that I am He." 

Tt is well known that Christ foretold not only his own sufferings, 
death and resurrection, but also the manner and circumstances of 
them. See Newton, supra, (The Doctor took his seat. Great applause) 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER, 169 

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 

I must again express my astonishment, that my opponent should 
found his arguments on the statements of the very book, the truth and 
authority of which are the points under discussion. Before he quotes 
from it as an authority, he should prove it worthy of trust. He should 
prove it a faithful record of events. Till he has done so, the argu- 
ments he brings on its testimony are worthless. He says Jesus was 
an illustrious prophet, and he quotes the Gospel in proof. But where 
is the proof that the Gospel is true 1 We have proved that many 
parts of the Gospel are false, — that they contradict each other : the 
Doctor has not yet proved any portion true. 

My opponent says it is a slander to say that Christians ever make 
a distinction between lying, and the use of falsehood for a good ob- 
ject. He seems not to know what his own brother minister, President 
Mahan, of Oberlin College, and Paley, a minister of the English Church 
have written on this subject. Both distinguish between lying, in the 
common sense of the word, and the use of falsehood, even for personal 
convenience. A hundred Christian writers might be given, who make 
the same distinction, and give the same license to the use of falsehood. 
I am sorry my opponent is so little acquainted with ancient and mod- 
ern Christian literature. 

My opponent now acknowledges that those who have the Scriptures 
are no better than others, unless they practice what the Scriptures 
teach. He is becoming a little guarded in his assertions. At first, 
he exclaimed, "See what a difference between those who have the 
Bible, and those who have not!" Now, he qualifies his words. 
But he has to draw back still further, before he has done. Where are 
the men that do practice what the Bible teaches ? There are no 
such men. The Bible gives opposite rules of life. Men cannot 
follow both. The Bible teaches lying, theft, murder, adultery, incest 
and polygamy. No worse precepts, no precepts more immoral can be 
found, than some of the precepts, even of the New Testament. Men, 
therefore, that should obey the teachings of the Bible, would be worse 
for it instead of better. 

My opponent must qualify his words a little more, before they can 
be allowed to pass unquestioned. He should say, there are some pre- 
cepts of the Bible which a man may follow to advantage, provided 
he gives them a liberal interpretation. 

My opponent says, that the burden of proof, with respect to the 
prophecies, lies on me. He quotes fifty or a hundred passages, and 
calls them prophecies of Jesus, and contends that they ought to be 
taken as prophecies of Jesus, till I have proved they are not. This 
is simply ridiculous. Nothing would be easier than to prove that his 
quotations are not prophecies of Jesus. It would be easy to prove 
that many of them are no prophecies at all. But till my opponent 
has attempted to prove that they are prophecies, and that they do refer 
to Jesus, it is unnecessary to do so. My opponent knows, as well as I 
do, unless he knows less than I suppose, that before his quotations of 
pretented prophecies of Jesus can be of any use to him, he must 
prove, 1. That they are prophecies, 2. That they refer to Jesus. 
3. That they mean what he says. 4. That the Gospel history agrees 



170 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



with them ; and, 5. That the Gospel history is true. But he has 
not proved any of these points. 

My opponent charges me with want of faith in all human testi- 
mony, with thinking every man an intolerable rascal. He will allow 
us, perhaps, to say, that the charge is false. We do not think every 
man an intolerable rascal. We know many men who are good and 
true. Nor are we without faith in human testimony. There are 
numbers in whose testimony we have the fullest confidence. The 
testimony we have called in question, is such testimony as is afforded 
in proof of the superhuman origin of the Bible. We have given our 
reasons for calling in question such testimony. We have shown that 
much of it is palpably false, and that none of it can be proved to be 
true. We have shown the best of it is doubtful and supicious. We 
have shown that the men who gave it were sometimes ignorant, 
always interested, and never trustworthy, We have shown that 
many of them avowed their belief that the use of falsehood and fraud, 
in support of their religion, was lawful and praiseworthy ; and that 
those who did not avow this doctrine, acted on it. We have shown 
(what every one acquainted with the subject knows) that ancient 
history generally is fabulous, — that ancient priestly history is especi- 
ally fabulous, — that on no subject has a greater amount of falsehood 
been employed, than on religion. If it be a sign of a bad heart, to 
doubt or reject the testimony given in support of religion and sacred 
books, my opponent is in the same condemnation as myself. I am not 
certain that he does not reject as much testimony as myself. He re- 
jects the testimony of the Mormonites, respecting the Book of Mor- 
mon and Mormon miracles. He rejects the testimony of the Shakers, 
respecting the origin of their sacred roll. He rejects the testimony of 
the Mohammedans, respecting the mission and history of Mohammed, 
and the origin of the Koran. He rejects the testimony of the Chinese, 
the Hindoos and the Persians, respecting their sacred books, and the 
inspiration and miracles of their prophets and saviours. He rejects the 
testimony of the ancient Greeks and Romans, respecting the divine 
origin of their laws and institutions, the intercourse of the Gods with 
their ancestors, the wonders of Ovid's Metamorphoses, their accounts 
of their oracles, prophets and miracles. He rejects the testimony of 
all mankind on these subjects, except the small portion called 
Christian. He rejects nine tenths of the testimony offered on re- 
ligious subjects by his brother Christians. As we have said, he 
rejects the testimony of the Latter- Day Saints and the Shakers. 
He rejects the testimony of the early Quakers, the most truthful sect 
ever known. He rejects the testimony given in favour of Swedenborg 
and his revelations, and the testimony given in favour of Spiritualism, 
the most puzzling and astounding testimony of all. Nay, more ; he 
rejects, at one stroke, the testimony of the whole Christian Church, 
for more than a thousand years, and the testimony of by far the 
greatest part of the Church, even to this day. What faith has he in 
the Roman Catholic Church and priesthood, the most numerous of 
all % None. He calls that Church the man of Sin. He says deceit, 
and fraud, and murder, have been employed by that Church, without 
scruple, and without measure, from the beginning. He calls their 
holy legends, their histories of the Saints, the grossest fables. He 
denounces their accounts of miracles, relics, appearances of the Virgin, 



REMARKS OF JUSEPH BARKER. 



171 



of Jesus, of Saints, and the world of traditions which they deem as 
holy and authoritative as the Bible itself, as a world of falsehood, 
fraud and forgery. He goes yet further, and rejects the testimony of 
Unitarians and Universalists, and is an unbeliever in all matters per- 
taining to the history of their opinions, their celebrated men, and the 
virtuous lives and happy deaths of their friends. He will not even 
rely on the testimony of a brother Christian, in matters of religious 
controversy. He will call in question the veracity of members of his 
own sect, and even of his own church, and congregation, when it suits 
his purpose. Even in matters of business, he requiies a written 
agreement, and a legal hand. Where, then, is the difference between 
him and me ? He thinks there are truth and honesty in a small 
number, whose testimony goes in favour of his own opinions and 
prejudices : and we think there are truth and honesty in a still 
greater number. He has a corner in the Christain world, where he 
thinks the truth may be found ; we have corners in the unregenerate 
and unbelieving world, where we know that truthful souls reside. 
My opponent is a greater disbeliever than I. He goes incalculably 
further in setting down men as rascals than I. Much of the false 
testimony that he attributed to rascality, I attribute to ignorance and 
credulity, and to mistaken piety and benevolence. 

As to the letter of Thomas Carver, I thought at first it was a 
forgery, but afterwards I saw it was the outpourings of disappoint- 
ment and passion. The writer asks, "Should I turn rouge for a silver 
watch?" It struck me, at the time, that a person who could write 
as he was writing, would turn rogue for something less than a silver 
watch. The best men that ever lived have had such letters written 
respecting them. You may get them written against any reformer, 
for a trifle. For a trifle more, you could get them attested. My 
opponent can assure you, that lies and perjury are common things 
with some pretenders to religion. Others can assure you that they are 
common things with many. But supposing the letter true, what does 
it prove ? What has it to do with the question ? If I should prove 
to you that Popes, Cardinals, Monks and Nuns, Protestant Bishops, 
Methodist preachers, and Presbyterian ministers, had been guilty of 
lying, stealing and murder, of drunkenness, fornication and adultery — 
as I easily could do — would it prove the Bible false ? No. Suppose 
my opponent could prove the letter of Carver true, which he never 
can do — would it prove the Bible to be of God ? Not at all. My 
opponent would gain more credit for himself, if he did not help his 
cause a little better, if he would keep to the question. 

He says Bolingbroke speaks of the Gospel as teaching universal 
benevolence. What then ? Suppose the Gospel does teach univer- 
sal benevolence, is every book that teaches universal benevolence of 
superhuman origin? My opponent knows to the contrary. A book 
may teach universal benevolence in one part, and encourage slave- 
holding, tyranny, and every form of iniquity, in other parts. Our 
plan is to take the good and leave the bad, in every book. But my 
opponent must excuse me if I say, that I never trust the testimony of 
Christians, with regard to the contents of the works of unbelievers. 
They may speak of them truly; but I know they often speak of them 
falsely. 

My opponent says he cannot find any statement in the Gospel, to 



172 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



the effect that the number of the guests at the marriage of Cana was 
twenty. I never said that was the number. I simply made the 
supposition. But the supposition was not unreasonable. There might 
not be so many. The Gospel says it was Christ's first miracle. 
According to other passages, he had very few disciples till after he 
had wrought many miracles. 

But it was usual to sell the wine that was left on such occasions, 
says my opponent. It seems going too far, to represent Jesus as 
making wine for sale, as well as for private consumption. The story 
is a rather awkward one for the advocates of teetotalism, deal with 
it a? you will. 

I will now proceed with my summary of the debate, so that those 
who wish may see what has been done and what has not been done. 

The Doctor was to prove : — 1. That the Bible is of superhuman 
origin — 2. That its tendency, when so regarded, is to do good, and 
nothing but good. 

To prove the first point, he was to produce — 1. Internal — 2. Ex- 
ternal evidence. 

What has he done ? It is not for us to judge. We know what it 
was necessary to do. We will srate some of the things which he has 
not done, and which remain for him to do. — He should prove — 

1. That the style of the Bible is more than human. He should, 
therefore, state what are the marks whish distinguish a divine from 
a human style. 

2. He should prove that the contents of the Bible bear marks of 
a superhuman origin. He should therefore, state precisely what things 
man can originate in philosophy, morality and theology, and what he 
cannot, and then prove all the contents of the Bible to be of the 
latter kind. 

He should have produced a few of the bast written books, in differ- 
ent languages, and compared the best specimens of their style with 
specimens of the bible style, and shown that the Bible specimens 
weie incomparably the best. 

He should then have produced the best books on morality, theolo- 
gy, cosmogony, history, astronomy and physiology, and given specimens 
of their best passages ; their truest, purest, and loftiest sentiments ; 
and then produced passages from the Bible on the same subjects, and 
shown that the Bible passages were infinitely truer, better purer, 
loftier. This he has not done. He has not attempted to do it. The 
man who should attempt to do it, would make himself infinitely ridi- 
culous. Suffice it to say, that what we have done, we need not 
repeat. We have given the most decisive proofs, that the Bible is 
not divine ; that it bears the plainest, the most palpable traces, on 
almost every page, of a purely human origin. And now we call on 
our opponent to produce a book that bears on its pages more marks, 
or marks more manifest or more melancholy, of an imperfect origin, 
than the Bible. But this, we know, he cannot do. 

1. He cannot produce a books that contains lower or grosser repre- 
sentations of God — one that more plainly attributes to Him the human 
form and human imperfections. 

2. He cannot produce a book that attiibutes to God more bloody 
deeds, more inhuman butcheries, more heartless slaughters of unoffen- 
ding peoples, of helpless, unprotected women and children. 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



173 



3 He cannot producea book that talks more childishly about astron- 
omical, geographical, meteorological, or scientific matters generally. 

4. He cannot produce a book that says more in favour of poly- 
gamy, concubinage — that represents polygamists as the special friends 
of God, as persons obeying in all things God's laws, and that tells 
us that the man who had seven hundred wives and three hundred 
mistresses was the wisest of them all — the wisest man that ever lived 
or that ever shall live. 

h. He cannot produce a book more in favour of slavery, the sub- 
jugation and oppression of woman, and the absolute despotism of the 
husband. 

6. He cannot produce a book that more expressly requires members 
of churches to obey their church rulers, or that lays a broader or a 
deeper foundation for Priestcraft. 

7. He cannot produce a book that teaches falser doctrines respect- 
ing political rulers, or that requires more servile, more absolute sub- 
jection and obedience to the powers that be, or that strikes more 
directly or more fatally at the civil rights of men. 

8. He cannot produce a book that says more in favour of slavery, 
that authorises worse forms of slavery, that sanctions grosser cruelties, 
towards slaves, that connives more at the licentiousness inseparable 
from slavery, or that requires from slaves more absolute and universal 
obedience to the commands of their masters, whether good or bad, 
whatever those commands may be. 

9. He cannot produce a book that authorises harsher treatment of 
children by their parents, or that speaks more strongly in favour of 
the free and unsparing use of the rod. 

10. He cannot produce a book that contains a greater number of 
childish, trifling, ridiculous, contemptible laws about offerings, priests, 
and ceremonies. 

11. He cannot produce a book that contains more cruel and re- 
volting laws about the treatment of women and wives, than several 
of those in the books of Moses. 

12. He cannot produce a book that contains more partial laws than 
those about servitude, bad meat, usury, and the like. 

13 He cannot produce a book that represents God us more unjust 
than those parts of the Bible do, which represent him as punishing 
whole races of beings, throughout all ages, for the offence of one in- 
dividual of each race, and as commanding innocent sons and grand- 
sons to be hung or beheaded for a father or a grandfather's fault, or 
whole nations to be utterly cut off, man, woman, and suckling, for an 
offence alleged to have been committed 450 years before. 

14. He cannot produce a book that represents God as more fiercely 
or implacably revengeful. 

15. He cannot produce a book that contains a more horrible or 
infernal infusion of revenge and cruelty, than the 109 Psalm, said 
to be a Psalm of David, the man after God's own heart. 

16. He cannot produce a book that goes further in the encourage- 
ment of cruelty — cruelty of the most savage and inexcusable kind — 
than the book which says, " Babylon, happy shall he be, that 
taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Psalm 137. 

17. He cannot produce a book that contains a greater number of 
contradictions, or contradictions of a moie palpable or astounding 
character. 



174 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



18. He cannot produce a book that contains more indecent or ob- 
scene stories, or more disgusting allusions, or more filthy exaggera- 
tions, than the stories about Onan, Lot, the wives of Jacob, Sarah, &c. 
and passages in the Pentateuch, the Song of Solomon, and the prophets. 

1 9. He cannot produce a book that portrays a more deceitful, selfish, 
scheming, swindling supplanter, than the old Jew Jacob, who is said 
to have had such power over God as to have beaten him in a wrest- 
ling match, and to have won from God himself the new name of 
Israel, or conqueror of God. 

20. He cannot produce a book that gives two more different or 
inconsistent portraits of the same person, than the Gospels of Matthew 
and John give of Jesus. 

21. He cannot produce a book that teaches more foolish doctrines 
or that gives more foolish rules in relation to giving, lending, taking 
thought for to-morrow, laying up treasures on earth, selling all pro- 
perty and giving the proceeds to the poor, being content in whatever 
condition or calling we may be, and the like. 

22. He cannot produce a book that gives a representation of the 
laws by which the universe is governed, and the affairs of mankind 
controlled, more at variance with the fixed and unalterable laws re- 
vealed by Nature and mankind themselves. 

23. He cannot produce a book which presents for our admiration 
and imitation more defective or faulty characters than the prophet who 
could call down fire from heaven on his fellow-men, curse children, 
and cause forty and three of them to be torn in pieces by wild beasts, 
for calling him bald head ; murdered 850 dissenting prophets in a 
day, hewed men in pieces in cool blood, lied, cheated, kidnapped, 
bought and sold human beings, bred slaves, lived in unbridled licen- 
tiousness, and practiced almost every known abomination. 

24. He cannot produce a book that tells a greater number of ridi- 
culous and impossible stories than those about a reasoning serpent, 
the talking ass, the swimming iron, the origin of giants, the first trans- 
gression, the tree of life, the flaming sword and cherubim, the tower 
of Babel, the confusion of tongues, the monster fable of the flood, 
the foxes and firebrands of Samson, the whale and Jonah, the devils 
and swine, the origin of the Moabites and Amorites, the experiments 
of Jacob on his flock, and the thousand similar impossibilities so gravely 
recorded as historical and scientific verities. 

Yet all this he must do, and much more, before he can prove the 
Bible to be of God, by internal evidence. 

Before he can prove the Bible of God by external evidence, he must, 
first, tell us what he means by external evidence, and show us its force. 

He should define a miracle, and show how a miracle may be distin- 
guished from events that are not miraculous. 

He should prove that miracles haYe been wrought. 

He should prove that miracles demonstrate the presence and special 
agency of God. 

He should prove that devils or bad men never wrought miracles. 

He should prove that God never wrought miracles, or caused them 
to be wrought, for the purpose of proving or tempting people to em- 
brace false religions, or believe a lie. 

He should prove that the magicians of Egypt did not work miracles. 

He should prove that the false teachers mentioned in the Gospels 



REMARKS OP JOSEPH BARKER. 



170 



did not show great signs, and work great miracles, so as to deceive all 
that were not God's very elect, and incapable of being deceived. 

He should prove that the miracles said to have been wrought by- 
Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Jesus, and his Apostles were wrought. 

He should prove that God wrought them to prove the truth of cer- 
tain doctrines, and his appprobation of certain persons, and of their 
sayings and doings, and not for the purposes of tempting, proving, mis- 
leading or deceiving men, in order to bring them to believe a lie and 
be damned. 

He should prove that the Jews and Gentiles, in the days of Jesus 
were not very wicked ; that they had not both rejected or corrupted 
previous revelations of God's truth ; that they had not refused to re- 
ceive the truth in the love thereof ; that they had not pleasure in un- 
righteousness ; or that they were not exactly the kind of men to whom 
the Apostle says God is accustomed to give up to themselves, to their 
own hearts' lusts, or to whom it is his plan to send strong delusions of 
the devil, to work before them and among them all kinds of lying won- 
ders and miracles, irresistible in their power to deceive, to bring them 
to believe a lie, that they might be damned 

He should prove that the books of the Bible were written by the 
persons whose names they bear. 

He should prove it by testimony that has not been proved untrust- 
worthy, by being convicted of deceit and lies. 

He should prove that the persons who wrote these books were spe- 
cially, miraculously endowed by God, so as to be secured against the 
possibility of error or mistake. 

He should prove this by arguments, such as men of common sense 
and common attainments can understand. 

He should prove that the claims to divine inspiration put forward by 
writers of books, or by others in behalf of books, are not generally false. 

He should prove that the claims put forth in behalf of the Bible are 
an exception to the general rule. 

He should prove that the Jewish priests, and the Jewish scribes, 
and many of the Jewish prophets, who composed those books, or who 
had the care and management of them, were not, according to Jere- 
miah, from the least, even unto the greatest of them, given to covet- 
ousness, and that they were not, from the prophet even unto the priest 
given, every one of them, to deal falsely. Jeremiah 6 : 13. That in 
transgressing and lying, and conceiving and uttering from the heart 
words of falsehood, they had not gained a deplorable notoriety ; that 
truth had not fallen in the streets, and that equity could enter ; that it 
had not utterly failed, so that he that departed from evil made himself 
a prey, as Isaiah says. That they were not the children of the devil, 
devising lies and plotting murder, like him, as Jesus says. That they 
did not forge and corrupt books, to aid them in their villanous plots. 
That the high priest Hilkiah, who pretended to find the Book of the 
Law of the Lord, as recorded in 2 Kings 22, did not forge the book 
to gain favour for his priestly ceremonies, his gainful institutions of 
offerings and sacrifices, and the establishment of the priestly power 
over the people. 

He should prove that the early Christians did not practice deceit, use 
frauds, for the purpose of gaining proselytes, silencing objections, and 
extending their religious system. 



176 



DISCUSSION ON THIS BIBLE. 



He should prove that they did not, especially, write fabulous Looks, 
forge the names of celebrated characters to give them authority, and 
thus impose, first, on the ignorant and credulous multitudes, and ulti- 
mately, on the people at large. 

He should prove that even the well-meaning and truly pious and 
benevolent did not use those pious frauds, believing they were serving 
God and blessing men, by endeavouring thus to spread abroad what 
they deemed to be the only saving truth. 

He should prove that they did not labour in this department of piety 
and benevolence more than in any other, and that the result was not 
the production of a multitude of fabulous Gospels, forged Epistles, 
creeds and constitutions, false tales of revelations, miracles, and re- 
markable interpositions of Providence ; forgeries in the names of Gen- 
tile oracles and philosophers, the corruption of the writings of Jews 
and Pagans, and such a multiplication of frauds, of all conceivable des- 
criptions, as the world has never before either beheld or dreamed of. 

He should prove that this system of fraud was not continued through 
every age of the Church, till the Christian priesthood, so called, gained 
the empire of the world, and introduced those ages of intellectual and 
moral darkness which are now, and must remain for ever, the wonder 
and the grief of every friend of truth, of freedom, of virtue and hu- 
manity. 

He should prove that our modern priesthoods, both Catholic and 
Protestant, have not continued this system of fraud, these deceitful 
arts to this day, and that their defences of Biblical inspiration, and their 
pretended histories of the lives and deaths of heretics and unbelievers, 
reformers and philanthropists, are not, as a general rule, either a com- 
pilation of ancient frauds and forgeries, or the fabrication of new ones, 
published sometimes in pious and benevolent ignorance, and, at other 
times, for the purpose of perpetuating their power over the bodies and 
souls of their dupes, and maintaining themselves in ease and affluence, 
at the expense of the toiling millions of the community. 

He should prove, in short, that he has something more than hearsay 
for his belief in the superhuman origin of the Bible ; the hearsay of 
known and proved, of avowed and systematic deceivers, or of blind, 
unreasoning, superstitious dupes of priestly guile. 

He should prove to us that the passages he quoted from the Bible 
as prophecies, are prophecies. 

He should prove that they were spoken or written in reference to 
Jesus of Nazareth. 

He should prove that the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth given in the 
Gospels, are true accounts. 

He should prove, next, that these accounts are, what he says, a 
literal fulfilment of the passages he quotes as prophecies — that the pro- 
phecies and the records exactly agree. 

Fe should prove that the Gospels were written by the persons 
whose names they bear. 

He should prove that the persons whose names they bear were com- 
petent and trust-worthy witnesses of the things they profess to record. 

He should prove that the Gospels might not have been, and that 
they were not, written long after the time when Jesus is said to have 
lived taught and died. 

He should prove that they are not collections, of traditions believed 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



177 



by the earlier Christians, but having all the uncertainly and mixtures 
of fable and exaggeration so common with the traditions of a dark 
and credulous age. 

He should prove that the partial agreement and partial disagree- 
ment of the Gospels are not exactly such as might be naturally looked 
for in the works produced by different authors, but compiled from the 
same traditionary sources. 

He should prove that there is something in the style or contents of 
the Gospels beyor.d what the powers of man might produce. 

He should prove that the book has no errors, no contradictions. 

He should prove that the character of Jesus, as portrayed in the 
Gospels, is a perfect character. 

He should prove that he did not, according to the Gospels, teach 
false and contradictory doctrines, bad and contradictory morals. 

He should prove that he did not, according to the Gospels, violate 
his own precepts, doing the very things which he warned other people 
not to do, on pain of God's wrath and damnation. 

He should prove that he did not encourage hopes of earthly honour 
and power and wealth, and of national aggrandizement, in his disci- 
ples, which they never realized. 

He should prove that he did not, according to the Gospels, make 
positive promises to his disciples of thrones and empires, of houses^ 
lands, and friends, here on earth, which he never fulfilled. Matthew 
19 : 27, 29 ; Mark 10 : 28, 30. 

He should prove that he did not utter false prophecies respecting 
the end of the world, when he said, This generation shall not pass 
away till all these things — the end of the world and the like — shall 
be fulfilled. See Matthew 24 : 29, 34. 

He should prove that, supposing the character of Jesus, as given 
in the Gospels, were a perfect moral character, it might not be a 
fancy piece — the production of love, veneration, and poetry, from their 
own resources and the aids afforded by the forms of varied moral 
beauty in the living characters around them, and the beautiful por- 
traits of virtuous excellence presented in the history, the biography, 
and the poetry- of their predecessors. 

He should prove that the natural tendency of the human soul is 
not to beautify and adorn, to improve and perfect, the idea it forms 
of the object of its affection, its gratitude, its reverence ; and that the 
poet, the sculptor, and the painter, the historian, the biographer, and 
the novelist, do not generally, if not invariably, create for us forms 
and characters and scenes more beautiful, more perfect, more entranc- 
ing than the homely realities of nature and experience. 

He should give us an argument to prove the necessity of divine 
revelation in ancient times, which would not prove as conclusively 
the necessity of a new revelation now. 

He should give us an argument to prove the Bible essential to the 
present or future welfare of mankind, which does not, in effect amount 
to blasphemy against God, so long as the great majority of mankind 
are now, and always have been, left without the Bible. 

He should prove that if God could, consistent with his goodness 
*nd justice, leave nineteen twentieths of his children without a super- 
natural revelation, he might not, consistent with his goodness and 
justice, leave the remaining twentieth without supernatural revelation. 

M 



ITS 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



He should prove thai the Jews who had the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures were wiser or better people, in the days of the prophets, of Jesus 
and of Paul, than the Gentiles, who had not those Scriptures. 

He should prove that heretical Samaritans are not generally better 
people than Orthodox Jews ; and that even unbelieving Sadducees are 
not less selfish, less deceitful, less cruel, less filthy, less dishonest, 
and less murderous, than the high professing sectarians and clergymen 
who make long prayers in the synagogues and public places, and once 
in a year, perhaps, appear unto men to fast. 

He should prove that even now, their very enemies being judges, 
the heretics and unbelievers, as the priests misname them, are not the 
first in all beneficent reforms ; the bravest and most zealous advocates 
of freedom and the rights of humanity ; the boldest assailants of po- 
litical and priestly tyranny ; the sternest foes of kidnapping, slave- 
holding, and man-hunting ; the truest friends of free discussion ; the 
most gentlemanly, courteous, and, in all respects, the best, behaved 
and talented disputants ; the first to acknowledge and correct a mis- 
take ; the last to call foul names, or attempt to appeal to the preju- 
dices or rouse the passions of an audience. 

He should prove that the churches and priesthoods of the day, 
whether Catholic or Protestant, are not the tories, the conservatives 
of abuses, the props of despotism and tyranny, the bulwarks of op- 
pression, the foes of free inquiry, the friends of blind belief, the perse- 
cutors and slanderers of men of science, and the enemies of all 
reforms, the advocates of bloody laws, the great obstructions in the path 
of progress, the plunderers of the poor and toiling, the flatterers of the 
rich, the idolators of the powerful, and the betrayers of the weak and 
friendless. 

He should prove that even where the Bible is most extensively 
circulated, the people who make least of its authority, such as the 
old fashioned Quakers, who subject it to the light within ; the pro- 
gressive Unitarians, who subject its teachings to reason, and modify 
them accordingly ; the bolder Universalists, who subject the book to 
their benevolent instincts, and allow no authority to a passage till it 
has been forced to speak the language of humanity and philanthrophy; 
the anti-supernaturalists, who take the book as a set of human com- 
positions, and receive or reject its teachings as seems best to their own 
judgments ; and the liberally educated men of the world, who have 
kept themselves out of the meshes of the Church and the priesthood, 
and who know no guide of life but their own good sense, and better 
feelings ; he should prove that these classes of men are not the best, 
the purest, the kindest, the mosl liberal and talented, the most honest 
and truthful, the most just in their dealings, the most upright in their 
public or political transactions, the most generous patrons of worth, 
the readiest to do good to all as they have the opportunity — the 
best, the most respectful as well as affectionate husbands, the most 
agreeable as well as the most faithful of parents, and the happiest as 
well. as the most honourable and useful of mankind. 

He should prove that those who regard the Bible as wholly divine, 
who bl indly submit to its teachings, or, rather, to the teachings of 
their priests, are not, with some exceptions, the most morose and un- 
civil, the most conceited and uncourteous, the most intolerant and 
inhuman, the most proud and uncharitable, the most ignorant and 



REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 



179 



*£o'.ed, the most unnatural and inhuman, the most deceitful and 
treacherous, and when provoked by the freedom of manly inquiry, 
the most malignant and revengeful, the most ferocious and bloody. 
None can hate like those whose hate is aided by religion. None can 
so relish the horrors of another's martyrdom, or enjoy with such zeal 
the agonies of his heretical victim, as the blind adorer of a Bible or a 
priesthood. 

He cannot prove one of these things. 

He should, also, name to us a war more bloody or more inexcusable 
than the war of the Church, called the Holy war. 

He should point us to an institution more inhuman or devilish than 
the Inquisition — the Holy Inquisition — the pet institution of the clergy. 

He should tell us of a bloodier or more butcherly massacre than 
the massacre of St. Bartholomew. 

He should name an order of men more crafty or dangerous, more 
proverbial for the employment of every forbidden art for the ac- 
complishment of their deadly aims, than the Jesuits, the most holy 
order of the Church. 

He should mention a place of more doleful sound, or more melan- 
choly meaning — -a place, the mention of which is associated with the 
idea of darker deeds, or more revolting crimes, than the nunnery or 
monastery, the holy of holies of the Church. 

He should mention a modern institution of more gigantic propor- 
tions, of more deadly influence, more fraught with injustice and cruelty, 
more fruitful of tears and tragedy, more ominous of coming evil, more 
discreditable to a great and mighty people, or more distressing to the 
wise and good of every nation upon earth, than American slavery, the 
nursling of the American Church and clergy. 

He should name a calamity more appalling and tremendous than 
the Irish famine ; or gu ; lt more atrocious than the guilt which caused 
it ; the guilt of the English aristocracy and State priesthood, the wor- 
shippers of the Bible. 

He should mention a war more unjust than the opium war, waged 
by the Bible-believing rulers of England. 

He should name to us doctrines more absurd, more monstrous, more 
impossible, more licentious, more blasphemous, than the doctrines of 
modern Protestant orthodoxy. (Hissing and applause.) 

• Take the doctrine of the Trinity : one God in three persons : three 
persons, each person God, and yet not three Gods. The first person 
is the father of the second, and the third proc eds from the father 
and the son, yet neither is before or after the other. All are of one 
age. The son is as old as his father, and the grandson is as old as 
either. The first of these persons demands satisfaction for man's sins ; 
the others do not, though they are all one God. The second becomes 
man, suffers and dies ; the others do not. The united Godhead and 
manhead are crucified and buried ; go into hell ; rise again from the 
grave on the third day. These are not a tenth part of the absurdi- 
ties of this doctrine. The doctrines of original sin, the atonement, 
imputed guilt and imputed righteousness, justification by Christ's 
merits, &c, are as foolish, as absurd, as monstrous, as blasphemoas, 
and as mischievous, as any that can be found, 



180 



DISCISSION ON THE BIBLE. 



REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG. 

(Immense applause.) My opponent seems to have unburdened 
himself. He charges me with calling him foul names. It is not in 
my power to use the utter malignity my opponent evinces in attempt- 
ing to brand with infamy the character of the best and purest men 
in this or any other land. 

He charges me with a long string of sins, of omission and commis- 
sion, which if any man should undertake to answer, would make him 
as old as Methuselah before he was done. (Laughter.) Among his 
so-called absurd stories of the Bible, he mentions the fact of Balaam's 
?ss speaking. He might as well have let the venerable brute go by 
without challenge. He was a sensible ass r and there have been many 
asses since his day, who have opened their mouths to much less pur- 
pose. (Uprorious laughter and shouting.) Jonah's whale. Could 
not God Almighty prepare a fish large enough to swallow a man ? 
And it is exprsssly asserted that the fish was prepared for that very 
purpose. He may as well let him alone. 

My opponent has spoken with learned precision on the subject of 
geology. He has doubtless large acquaintance with the subject, 
gathered from personal investigation ; for, as he walks by sight and 
not by faith, it cannot for a moment be supposed that so consistent a 
casuist would, in order to invalidate the Mosaic history, quote Mr. 
Hitchcock and expect us to receive him as authority superior to 
Moses. He has not, however, furnished the results of his own know- 
ledge or experience. Perhaps he will yet do so. The details will, 
no doubt be of thrilling interest. But let him do as he may, what a 
miserable piece of deception and presumptuous imposture is presented 
in this whole ado about geological testimony ! Geology, as a science, 
is yet in its infancy. Its oracles are as contradictory as the sophisms 
of Atheism. They contradict one another, and even themselves. 
Whom shall we follow 1 Shall we go with Bucklancb, when in com- 
pany with Cuvier, Le Due Dolomien, and others, he tells us the traces 
of the Mosaic deluge are indubitable ; or, shall we believe him when, 
in his Bridgewater Treatise, he modifies his views ? Shall I take my 
stand with Hugh Miller, when, in his " Old Red Sandstone," he 
teaches that " the system began with an age of dwarfs, and ended 
with an age of giants ?" or shall I follow him in his " Footprints," 
in which he reverses his former theory, and at the very base of the 
system, " discerns one of the most colossal of its giants ;'' and, in- 
stead of am ascending order of progressive development, asserts a de- 
scending order of progressive degradation ? Which of Lyell's con- 
tradictory positions shall I take ? There is one point, at least, in 
which all agree, and it is this ; " There is not a geological theory ex- 
tant, which would not be overthrown, and the whole science revolu- 
tionized, by the discovery of a single new fact." Miller p. 313, says; 
" It furnishes us with no clue to unravel the unapproachable myste- 
ries of creation ; these mysteries belong to the wondrous Creator, and 
to him only. A stray splinter of conebearing wood, a fish's skull or 
tooth, the vertebree of a reptile, the jaw of a quadruped, or the hu- 
merus of a bird — all, any of these things, weak, insignificant as they 
may seem, become, in such a quarrel, too strong for us and our theory, 



REMARKS OF Bit. BERG. 



181 



The puny fragment, in the grasp of truth, becomes as irresistable a 
weapon as the dry bone in the hands of damson of old, and our 
slaughtered sophisms are piled up, heaps on heaps, before it." This 
is the testimony of a man who is a geologist. The probability 
is, my opponent is not a practical geologist at all. If he were, he 
would not preach Hitchcock, praise Hitchcock, and for all practical 
purposes, it not swear, at least affirm by Hitchcock, as lustily as he 
does ! (Laughter.) Is this the kind of evidence upon which the Bible is 
to be discarded ? Are we to take the mutterings of geological wizards, 
who peep out of the dust, as louder and better truth than the contents 
of this book ? Geologists must be more modest. Let them tarry in 
Jericho till their beards be grown ; and when the science which they 
are cultivating is out of the cradle, and able to stand erect upon its 
feet, the first impulse of its generous manhood will be to proclaim, 
from the very heart of this great earth which Jehovah has made, that 
the Bible is the book of God, as surely as heaven and earth declare 
Lis glory, and show his handiwork. (Applause.) 

According to the code of disputations, I am not at liberty to intro- 
duce a new topic into the closing speech. I confine myself to some 
remarks, recapitulating, and appealing to all within the sound of my 
voice, to cherish the Bible as a precious gift, beyond all price that can 
be named, in its influences upon the dearest interests of humanity. 
The superiority of the Christian Revelation over the traditional reve- 
lation of Deism is manifest in the fact, that the one rests its hopes 
for the future upon a positive basis, whilst the other is built upon 
negation of every thing supernatural. This is not philosophical, be- 
cause, as the very existence of Nature establishes the fact of a super., 
natural and overruling power as the orignator of this glorious frame- 
work, the government of the intellectual and moral parts of the creation 
of God would call for a corresponding indication of the Divine will 
and purpose, in clothing it with those subtle attributes which are 
spiritual and immortal. We have shown that man's nature leads him 
to worship ; that his character becomes assimilated to the being which 
he worships ; and that whenever man has been left merely to his own 
resources, his course has been a downward one of superstition, abomi- 
nable idolatry and licentiousness. We have proved, that man possesses 
no resources by which to extricate himselt from this abyss — that art 
and science could not do it — that all philosophy ever effected towards 
the deliverance of the race was to make Atheists of Idolators. I have 
shown, that before any religion can challenge universal obedience or 
assent, it must be invested with the marks of superhuman authority — 
that it must be accredited of God by indications that shall attest its 
divine origin. Hence, the necessity for miracles and prophecy is a 
philosophical necessity. The Bible, to be of God, must bear not only 
internal evidence of its divine origin, but external also. My opponent 
utterly denies the superhuman authority of the laws, doctrines and 
institutions of Christianity. Then, I have shown that he has no 
ft undation upon which he can build the authority of law at all. Laws 
of merely human origin, depending on no eternal principles of divine- 
ly revealed and divinely attested right, are no laws at ail. Men may 
make and men may unmake them. Without a law from God, one 
man's authority is as good as any other's ; and thus anarchy stalks 
forth upon her work of desolation, and amid the ruins of civil freedom 



182 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



and social order, and the sad wrecks of domestic purity and peace, the 
grand negation of Infidel ty stands confessed, as an accumuiat ; on of 
positive horror, desolation and woe — a calamity of direst influence 
upon all the relations of life. T have shown that to deny a superhu- 
man revelation places the Infidel in the sad predicament of utter in- 
ability to pronounce the name of a specific God, or to account for the 
harmony of. the attributes ascribed to the Deistical idea of a Supreme 
Being, or even to tell what those attributes are, or even to show, with 
any degree of certainty, what object the Supreme Being, (if, indeed, 
there be one in his creed,) proposed in the Infidel's creation. I have 
endeavoured to show you that the internal evidences of the Scriptures 
sustain its claims ; that the alleged contradictions offered by Infidel 
assailants are captious cavils ; that these apparent discrepancies are 
often the result of the employment of language accommodated to hu- 
man infirmity ; and that the argument by which such accommodation 
is denounced as pernicious, is neutralized by the clear and positive 
declarations that God, as God, is not subject to the passions, or ar- 
rayed in the form of humanity, so that they who would pervert the 
Bible on this account, do it in the face of its own protest. I have 
shown that the more close Bible history is studied, the more clearly 
is the verity of its facts established ; fur it has been manifest that the 
Infidel objections against the Mosaic account of the deluge and the 
ark, paraded with so much pomp of authority, are idle and absurd. 

In short, regarding the purity of its morals, the varied extent of its 
subjects, the harmony between the laws of the Bible and the opera- 
tions of Providence — the clear and distinct explanation of phenomena, 
such as the introduction of sin, sickness, misery and death into the 
world, which, without the Sciiptural solution, are problems which In- 
fidelity can never unravel or reconcile with the idea of a God who 
governs in accordance with the laws of justice and mercy — regarding, 
I say, all these things, and the want of man's rature, which seeks 
for and feels after that light beyond the grave furnished in the Gos- 
pel, and then, above all, the glorious example of Christ, so pure, 
lovely and gentle, startling the world by a blaze of celestial glory, 
when the midnight darkness of corruption was blackest, and calling 
men to the path of the Gospel, by the most wonderful attestations 
of divine power, in working miracles, and blessing the poor and the 
outcast with the sweet mercies of heaven, and offering to sinful men 
the wondrous plan of redemption through the blood of the cross, ful- 
filling the plainest predictions in the circumstances of his own life 
and sufferings, death and resurrection, and himself predicting events 
which were literally accomplished, not only in the terrestial fulfilment 
of his mediatorial work, but afier his ascension in heaven — regarding 
all these things, and the consistent testimony of Evangelists, disciples 
and apostles, who sacrificed all for Christ and the Gospel, and lived 
and died in the defence and in the faith of it, and gave the best practi- 
cal testimony, in the holiness of their lives, that they were the messen- 
gers of God and of Christ, I cannot conceive of any amount of rational 
doubt but must yield before the pressure of this flood of testimony. 

We love this Bible. We can conceive no severer calamity to the 
race than to be deprived of its pure morality— and we know of no 
blacker gloom, even in imagination, than that which pours its shadow 7 
over the touh when the weary spirit is breaking through the dissolving 



REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 



183 



Walls of its earthly house, unsolaced by the light of life ! No Bible ! 
Oh ! horrid deprivation ! No Bible ! Then is the world one grand 
enigma — a tangled tissue of contradictions, unanswered and irrecon- 
cilable. I see the flowers springing from the warm bosom of the 
earth, and lifting their meek eyes towards heaven, and I say, surely 
there is a God, and the fragrance is earth's incense of praise. I hear 
the birds singing among the branches, happy and free, rejoicing in the 
pure air and sunlight of the bright heaven, and I say, surely there is a 
God, and this music is nature's anthem of thanksgiving. I look cut 
upon the furrowed field, and the springing corn smiles its blessings upon 
the God who sends the soft showers in their season. I see the joy of 
the harvest, and the golden sheaves praise him, and the fruitful trees 
praise him, and in full concert, all his works declare that He is good. 
But 1 hear a cry of anguish — it is the moaning of an infant gasping in 
its mother's arms. I see it pale and quivering in its agony ; I hear 
the wail of sorrow which woman alone can utter as she bows to weep 
over the dead whom she has borne. This world, what is it 1 A 
wilderness of graves ! A mighty charnei house ! from which groans 
of pain and sorrow are for ever rising to the heavens ; and I ask, " Is 
this world governed by one God who is good, and by another who is 
evil ? And is it so, that the evil is mightier than the good? Wretched 
man that I am ! How shall I oppose the wrath of the malignant being 
who wars thus constantly against human happiness, and finally so 
prevails that men die ? and dying, shall they ever live again 1 What 
answer sha ! l T give 1 Shall they live again 1 And if they do, will 
that life be a blessing or a curse ? What can I say ? There is no 
Bible ! And every grave confounds me — the joys of life perplex me, 
its. sorrows depress me — I am afraid to live, I dare not die ! Oh ! 
what can I do without the Bible ? What can I know without it, that 
shall still the eager questioning of the restless, deathless spirit that is 
beating, like a caged bird, against these earthen walls, struggling after 
the purer, wider range of its immortal sphere ? I know nothing, ex- 
cept that I am a child of sorrow and an heir of death. I can do 
nothing but regret my existence and submit to my fate. So says the 
Infidel ; not so the Christian. This world is no enigma to him. He 
cannot explain every detail, but he can see a glorious harmony between 
the operations of Providence and the testimony of the Bible. He 
knows -that God is good. He knows that God is holy, that moral 
law has its penalty for' transgressions, as surely as natural laws have 
theirs ; and, therefore, he knows there will be sorrow where there is 
sin ; but then, he learns this is not remediless. Christ has repaired 
the ruin, and provided the remedy. It is faith in him as the aathor of 
a new life, that is mightier than the power of death. It is faith which 
binds the soul to Christ, and raises it through all these scenes of sor- 
row to the joys of the heavenly inheritance. Let us cherish this a Bible ! 
Let us read its words, pure as silver refined. Its precepts are apples 
of gold. In keeping its commands, there is infinite reward. Let 
America keep the Bible, and the Bible will keep America ; it will be 
the salt of divine truth, that shall rectify the tendencies to moral cor- 
ruption, whether in the family, in society, or in civil government. It 
shall save the land from Infidel licentiousness and misrule. Remember 
that God no sooner caused any part of his will or word to be written, 
than he also commanded the same to be read, not only, in the family, 



184 



DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 



but alsoi n the congregation, " that they might hear, and that they might . 
learn, and fear the Lord their God, and observe to do all the words of 
his law." Defend, protect, and love the Bible, and the God of the 
Bible will cause his presence to be your glory, and upon that glory 
shall be the defence of his own almighty arm ! God grant to you all 
the blessings promised in His word to them that love his truth, and 
ever save our country from the blasting mildew of Infidel folly and 
falsehood. 

My opponent may deride the faith of Christians as sheer submission 
to the frauds of a Protestant priesthood, but so long as ministers of 
the Gospel enjoin upon men the duty of searching the Scriptures, we 
can let this assertion pass, with others, alike unfounded, and leave our 
faith and character to the ordeal of that day, when the fire shall try 
every man's work, what it is : and the ways and the word of God 
shall be finally and for ever vindicated ! 



CLOSING SCENES. 

As soon as Dr. Berg had finished, Mr. Barker left the hall. A 
friend of Dr. Berg took the platform, and while the audience were 
separating, read some resolutions in favour of the Doctor and the Bible. 
" Less than one fourth of the audience," says the Philadelphia Register, 
" voted for them. The more serious part of the audience did not vote 
at all. The great majority seemed to take the thing as a farce. The 
result of the vote made a good many long faces on the stage and front 
seats. A short silence ensued, followed by a burst of obstreporous 
laughter, and cries of ' the Infidels have it.' And so ended the most 
remarkable debate ever held in America." 



Turner, Printer, 25, Liverpool Road, Stoke- uDon-Trent, 



THE FOLLOWING 

WORKS BY JOSEPH BARKER, 

MAY ALSO BE HAD. 



AUTHENTIC REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION 

between Joseph Barker and William Cooke, in the Lecture Room, 
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on August 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 26th, 27th, 
28th, and September 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, 1845, with an Appendix, 
pp. 620. 2s. 6d. cloth bds. 

LIFE OF J. BARKER, written by himself. Cloth 3s. 

LECTURES ON CHURCH OF ENGLAND PRAYER BOOK. 
Cloth, 2s .j or in 16 Nos. Id. each. 

TRUTH AND REFORM AGAINST THE WORLD, in seven 
Letters to W. Cooke, in reply to his attacks on J. Barker. Pnce 
Is. cloth bds. 

THE HIRED MINISTRY, in seven Tracts, by J. Barker. Bound 
together price Is. cloth bds. 

THE LIFE OF WILLIAM PENN, the celebrated Quaker, and 

Founder of Pennsylvania. By J. Barker. Price Is. 
UNITARIANS AND CHARTISM. Price 2d. 

CHRISTIANITY TRIUMPHANT j or,- an enlarged view of the 
Character and Tendency of the Religion of Christ, showing that it 
is every way calculated to remedy the evils of a disordered and miser- 
able world^and to make men, throughout all lands, everything that 
is great, and good, and happy. By J. Barker. Price 2s. 

To those who may wish to see the best that can.be said on the side of 
Christianity, we would earnestly recommend this last work ; in our estimation 
one of the best that ever emanated from the pen of Joseph Barker, and in de- 
fence of Christianity infinitely superior to anyilmur advanced by Dr. Berg, W, 
Cooke, or any other opponent of J . Barker's 'present views. It is the ablest de- 
fence, of Christianity we have yet met with. — G. Turner. 



-IN THE PRESS, AND "SHORTLY WILL BE PUBLISHED, 

MARRIAGE & PARENTAGE; 

OR, 

THE REPRODUCTIVE ELEMENT IN MAN, 

AS A MEANS TO HIS 

ELEVATION AND HAPPSNESS. 

BY' HENRY C . ."WRIGHT. 

(Of America.) 

This work, though similar in name to some of Fowler's, is, in every respect, a 
distinct work, and contains much useful matter not found in any other work 
upon the subject.— G. T. 



Fe ? 06 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



